Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Maranatha Baptist Bible College Maranatha Baptist Seminary
Volume 1, Number 2
FALL 2011
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal www.mbbc.edu/journal ISSN 2160-1623
Published semi-annually by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary 745 W. Main Street Watertown, Wisconsin 53094 920.261.9300 www.mbbc.edu www.mbbc.edu/seminary Marty Marriott, President
Editor: Larry R. Oats
Communications and books for review should be addressed to the editor. The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is published two times a year (spring and fall). The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is a ministry of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. Copyright Š by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. All rights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced without the permission of the Editor, except for reproduction for classroom use by students or professors.
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume One, Number Two
INTRODUCTION __________________________________________ 141 A WARNING FOR TRUE BELIEVERS WHO LACK FAITH ____________ 143 FILLED WITH OR FULL OF THE SPIRIT: ACTS AND EPHESIANS ______ 197 TRACING THE THREAD OF TRINITARIAN THOUGHT FROM IGNATIUS TO ORIGEN _______________________________ 223 ADONIRAM JUDSON: FATHER OF AMERICAN MISSIONS _________ 253 BOOK REVIEWS __________________________________________ 287
Introduction The purpose of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is to provide for our constituency, and for others who may be interested, articles from a Baptist, dispensational, and conservative theological position. Articles will be academic and practical, biblical and theological, focused on the needs of the pastor and church leader, and, above all, faithful to God‘s Word. The education of a person in ministry, whether he or she is serving in vocational ministry or as a volunteer, is a continuing process. For that reason, Maranatha publishes the Theological Journal to assist individuals in their ongoing education. Through the Journal, our monthly webinars, Sunesis, and other venues, Maranatha Baptist Seminary and Maranatha Baptist Bible College seek to assist God‘s servants in whatever ways we are able. Our faculty are available to speak in churches and conferences on the topics on which they write, as well as in other areas of their expertise. We trust that you will be blessed and challenged as you read this issue of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal. Marty Marriott President Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary Larry R. Oats Editor www.mbbc.edu www.mbbc.edu/seminary www.mbbc.edu/TheStudy
MBTJ 1:2 143-194
A Warning for True Believers who Lack Faith Hebrews 6:4–8 Andrew Hudson1 Hebrews 6:4–8 is one of the most difficult New Testament passages to interpret. Almost every article written on this passage begins with a statement of its difficulty.2 At the same time, the interpretation of this passage is crucial to the interpretation of the other warning passages in Hebrews and to the development of one‘s theological position on several soteriological issues. There are three key issues in Hebrews 6:4–8 that must be interpreted in order to arrive at an acceptable interpretation of the entire paragraph. The first issue is whether or not ―those who were once enlightened‖ are actually saved.3 The second issue is the nature of the falling Dr. Hudson is Professor of New Testament at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. 2 For example, Wayne Grudem says, ―For centuries Christians have been puzzled by Hebrews 6:4–6.‖ ―Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study from Hebrews 6:4–6 and Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,‖ in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will, eds. Thomas Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 133. Scot McKnight says, ―Few are the number of Christians who have not been at least troubled by the warning passages of Hebrews, troubled perhaps to the point of despair or even terror.‖ ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,‖ Trinity Journal 13 (1992): 21. 3 David deSilva argues that asking whether the people described in Hebrews 6 are saved distorts the author‘s meaning. He suggests instead that the people should merely be presented as recipients of the gifts of God in a patron-client social 1
144
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
away in verse six. Is it a rejection of Christ‘s offer of salvation, or is it a rejection of some aspect within Christianity? The third issue is the nature of the judgment for falling away in verses four and eight. Is the judgment eternal damnation of an unbeliever, or is it the severe chastisement of an erring believer? The proper interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–8 must provide solutions for each of these issues. The purpose of this article is to suggest a solution for each of these issues. First, ―those who were once enlightened‖ are true believers. They have been regenerated and are part of the body of Christ. Second, ―falling away‖ is a conscious rejection of Christ‘s high priestly ministry for the believer.4 It is not a rejection of Christ‘s offer of salvation. It is a reference to faulty devotion and worship, not a faulty salvation experience. Third, the judgment for rejecting Christ‘s high priestly ministry for the believer is severe chastisement (up to and including physical death and/or loss of eternal reward). It is not a reference to the eternal damnation of the unbeliever. This article begins with a brief review of the major interpretations proposed for Hebrews 6:4–8. This review intertexture. ―Hebrews 6:4–8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),‖ Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999): 42-44. This view suffers from an either-or fallacy. Either the author of Hebrews is speaking of salvation, or he is speaking of the patron-client relationship. It is entirely possible to see the ―gifts‖ that came to the ―clients‖ as the gifts associated with salvation. The author may be speaking of both salvation and the patron-client relationship. deSilva himself identifies the individuals in Hebrews 6:1–2 as ―converted.‖ ―Hebrews 6:4–8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 2),‖ Tyndale Bulletin 50 (1999): 226. 4 Christ‘s high priestly ministry for the NT saint provides access to the grace and mercy that helps the saint in time of need and provides access to the throne of God to request that help (Heb 4:14–16). It is the blood of Christ which makes this fellowship and provision possible for the believer.
A Warning for True Believers
145
sets the context for the current discussion of this paragraph of Scripture. Next, the article places Hebrews 6:4–8 in its biblical context. Last, the article provides a detailed study of Hebrew 6:4–8 in order to argue for the solutions to the three issues mentioned above. It is not the intention of this article to deal with all of the warning passages in the book of Hebrews. Other warning passages are mentioned only as they relate to Hebrews 6:4–8. Neither is it the intention of this article to argue for the eternal security of the believer from this passage.5 While this passage may support the perseverance of the saints, this article suggests that Hebrews 6:4–8 is not even talking about soteriological issues. Instead, it is discussing the spiritual health of a true believer‘s lifestyle. Proposed Solutions for Hebrews 6:4–8 There are several ways to categorize the various views of Hebrews 6:4–8. Each of the three issues discussed above generates a variety of opinions. Perhaps the best way to organize this data is to divide the various views by means of the first issue discussed above. Are ―those who were once enlightened‖ saved or not? Professing Believers—Truly Unsaved Some suggest that the descriptive phrases in Hebrews 6:4–5 describe an individual who has adequate knowledge of the truth of salvation, and yet, consciously rejects Christ‘s offer of salvation.6 Compton argues that ―the Some have used this passage to argue for the doctrine of the eternal security of the believer. See R. Bruce Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away: A Reexamination of Hebrews 6:4– 6,‖ Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 135–167 and Wayne Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints.‖ 6 Roger Nicole, ―Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4–6,‖ in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. G. 5
146
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
passage refers to those who have heard the gospel, have made a profession of faith, yet are not saved.‖7 Those who hold this view readily admit that the description of the person in Hebrews 6:4–5 appears to suggest a genuine Christian.8 However, they assert that the description itself is inconclusive, so the context must be the determining factor.9 Those who hold this view identify the ―falling away‖ as apostasy. Compton says, ―its use in the LXX, the parallel expressions in the other warning passages, and the descriptive phrases accompanying it here and elsewhere in Hebrews lead inevitably to the conclusion that the sin of apostasy is meant.‖10 Apostasy is the conscious rejection of the gospel of Christ after receiving a thorough and Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 355–364; Stewart Custer, ―The Awfulness of Apostasy,‖ Biblical Viewpoint 24 (April 1990): 45−50; Wayne Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 133– 182; Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 135–167; L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 3:302–303; Robert A. Peterson, ―Apostasy,‖ Presbyterion 19 (1993): 17–31; Yoon Duk Kim, ―The Peril of Apostasy in Hebrews 6:4–6‖ (Th.M Thesis, Talbot School of Theology-Biola University, 1989); Andrew Fredrick Foth, ―The Awful Possibility: A Study of Hebrews 6:4–8‖ (Th.M. Thesis, Central Baptist Theological Seminary, 1981); John E. Ward, ―The Perplexing Problem of Hebrews Six‖ (Th.M. Thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1982); George H. Guthrie, The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) 230–231; Robert A. Peterson, ―Apostasy in the Hebrews Warning Passages,‖ Presbyterion 34 (Spring 2008): 27–44; Dave Mathewson, ―Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the Old Testament,‖ Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999): 209–225. 7 Compton, 145. 8 Compton, 145–146; Grudem, 137. Grudem says, ―If we confine our attention to verses 4–6, a good case can be made for viewing these people as those who were once truly saved.‖ 9 Compton, 146; Grudem, 139–140, 152. 10 Compton, 156.
A Warning for True Believers
147
understandable explanation of it. In fact, those described in Hebrews had even assented to the truth of the gospel for a time; however, their profession was not real. According to this view, the judgment faced by those who reject the gospel of Christ is eternal damnation. Compton says, ―Under the pressure of persecution, these abandon the faith and are faced with eternal condemnation and judgment.‖11 Grudem calls the judgment ―the final judgment of God‖ and the apostate‘s final state one of ―cursing and fiery judgment.‖12 In summary, this view proposes that Hebrews 6:4–8 describes individuals who heard the gospel of Christ and made a profession of faith.13 They lived as Christians for a while within the fellowship of the church. When persecution came, however, they rejected the gospel and publicly ridiculed Christ. As a result of their rejection they are beyond repentance (i.e., permanently hardened) and can only look forward to God‘s fiery judgment on the unsaved. Genuine Believers—Truly Saved There are several views that present those described in Hebrews 6:4–8 as genuinely saved individuals. These views accept the natural reading of the descriptions in verses 4–5 as those who have been regenerated and are truly saved. Even though these views agree that Hebrews 6:4–8 is describing saved individuals, there is no consensus regarding the nature of ―falling away‖ or the nature of judgment. There are at least four variations within this general category.
Ibid., 145. Grudem, 155. 13 Peterson suggests that only a small number were actually in a professing-only state. He says, ―The writer issues a real warning to a minority of his readers whom he fears may not know Christ and may show it by committing apostasy‖ (Peterson, 43). 11 12
148
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Hypothetical rejection. Those who hold the hypothetical rejection view suggest that the author of Hebrews desires to shake true believers loose from their moral lethargy by mentioning what would happen if they ―fell away.‖14 These believers would lose their salvation and face eternal condemnation. According to this view ―fall away‖ means to reject the gospel of Christ, and the judgment that follows is the eternal condemnation of the unsaved.15 However, proponents of this view are quick to point out that this ―falling away‖ is impossible for true believers. The author of Hebrews is merely using a hypothetical impossibility to warn true believers about continuing in their spiritual immaturity. Hewitt states, ―The writer by the use of the phrase if they shall fall away does not say that the readers or anyone else had fallen away. He is putting forward a hypothetical case as the RSV translation, ‗if they then commit apostasy,‘ suggests.‖16 This view has at least two problems. First, it would make no sense to warn believers about something that would be impossible for them. If it were impossible for them to fall away, then why would they need a warning against falling away?17 Second, if it is impossible to fall away, then Thomas Hewitt, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 106– 111; Homer Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972) 107–114. 15 Kent, 109–110. Kent explains ―fall away‖ as ―a complete and final repudiation of Christ.‖ 16 Hewitt, 108. Kent follows Hewitt saying, ―All things considered, the last view [hypothetical rejection] commends itself to the present writer as dealing most adequately with the text‖ (Epistle to the Hebrews, 113–114). 17 Grudem, 152. Kent responds to this claim of irrelevancy by citing three New Testament verses where a hypothetical or even impossible case is given (Gal 3:12; Jas 2:10; John 9:39). However, none of these cases are in the context of a warning, and thus, do not support Kent‘s claim (Epistle to the Hebrews, 114). 14
A Warning for True Believers
149
there should be no one who has fallen away. Hebrews 10:25, which is part of a passage that parallels 6:4–8, mentions some who have fallen away. Therefore, the text of Hebrews itself argues against this view.18 Community rejection.19 Verlyn Verbrugge has suggested that Hebrews 6:4–8 is not even talking about individual salvation, rejection, and judgment. Instead, the concept of community is intended.20 Therefore, it is the believing community that is rejected, not each individual member. Verbrugge summarizes his view, When we examine the Old Testament passage referred to here [Vineyard Song–Isa. 5:1–7], we will note that the primary concept in the author‘s mind is that of a covenant community and not the individual child of God. Thus when we read of the falling away and of God‘s subsequent rejection, it is rejection of a community that is in focus. Such a rejection does not necessarily include every individual member of the community; in both Old Testament and New Testament parallel passages, this same theme can be found. In other words, God‘s rejection of his covenant community does not jeopardize the doctrine of election and the Compton, 142. Verlyn Verbrugge, ―Towards a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–6,‖ Calvin Theological Journal 15 (April 1980): 61– 73; Noel Weeks, ―Admonition and Error in Hebrews,‖ Westminster Theological Journal 39 (Fall 1976): 72–80; Brent Nongbri, ―A Touch of Condemnation in a Word of Exhortation: Apocalyptic Language and Graeco-Roman Rhetoric in Hebrews 6:4–12,‖ Novum Testamentum XLV (2003): 265–279; Peter S. Perry, ―Making Fear Personal: Hebrews 5.11–6.12 and the Argument from Shame,‖ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (2009): 99–125. 20 Verbrugge, 61–73. 18 19
150
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal preservation or perseverance of the saints as it applies to the individual believer.21
Nongbri says, ―The author of Hebrews has thus appropriated the language of apocalyptic and snapped it into a rhetorically proper format to further his goal of exhorting his addressees to persevere in their marginalized community.‖22 This view is not convincing. The warnings and the exhortations to persevere given in the book of Hebrews are given to individual Christians.23 The concept of God only ―rejecting‖ part of a community is inconsistent with the Old Testament teaching concerning blessings and cursing. The entire nation of Israel was either blessed or cursed, not just parts of it (see Deut 28–30). Hebrews 6:7–8 also states that the entire land was either blessed or cursed. True (phenomenological) rejection. Some propose that true believers can change their mind about their faith in Christ. These believers, after being saved and experiencing the Christian life, reject the message of the gospel. These former believers then lose their salvation and, most likely, any future hope of being resaved.24 The ―falling away‖ is a Verbrugge, 62. Nongbri, 266. 23 See McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 54. 24 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 179–187; William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1991), 141–143, 145–146; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 318– 325; Herbert H. Hohenstein, ―A Study of Hebrews 6:4–8,‖ Concordia Theological Monthly 27 (June 1956): 433–444, 536– 546; McKnight, 21–59; Wayne R. Kempson, ―Hebrews 6:1–8,‖ Review and Expositor 91 (1994): 567–573; Martin Emmrich, ―Hebrews 6:4–6—Again! (A Pneumatological Inquiry),‖ Westminster Theological Journal 65 (2003): 83–95. 21 22
A Warning for True Believers
151
conscious choice to reject the gospel of Christ. Hohenstein says, ―[T]he writer [of Hebrews] makes it unmistakably clear that if men who have been enlivened choose to return to the death of unbelief, there is no hope that the quick and powerful Word . . . will resurrect them from their gloomy grave of spiritual darkness.‖25 The judgment for returning to a condition of unbelief is eternal damnation (―death of unbelief‖). These former believers are treated in the judgment as if they had never been saved. McKnight emphasizes the progressive nature of salvation. He identifies two categories of salvation: inaugurated salvation and final salvation.26 In the inaugurated stage of salvation, he includes conversion (past) and perseverance (present). Final salvation is future complete salvation. He asserts that someone can have a conversion experience and begin to persevere. However, if they fail to persevere and instead apostatize, they will not attain final salvation. McKnight concludes, In light of the futurity of salvation in Hebrews it is reasonable to contend that one cannot in fact ―lose one‘s salvation,‖ since one has not yet acquired it. One cannot lose what one does not in fact have. But perhaps we are playing semantics here. Perhaps we should say that we can ―lose‖ the present dimensions of salvation that have already been inaugurated and experienced (6:4–5; 10:14; 12:22–24). But, we certainly need to be careful of what we are saying if we say that the author of Hebrews states that we can ―lose salvation‖ because, for him, salvation is largely a future state of affairs. In light of his hesitancy to apply the term to the present time, it is perhaps wisest for us to avoid its use in this sense. Rather, I think it is
25 26
Hohenstein, 538. McKnight, 57.
152
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal wisest to say that those who are phenomenologically believers can ―lose their faith‖ and the enjoyment of God‘s salvation that persevering faith would have made possible for them.27
McKnight‘s change in terminology from ―lose salvation‖ to ―lose faith‖ does not free him from a theological tension. If final salvation is dependent upon human perseverance, then final salvation is based on human works. This is contrary to the teaching in Scripture that salvation is a free gift of God (Eph 2:8–9). Kempson likens salvation to a journey toward future salvation that can only be reached through continued faith.28 He says, ―Those who quit the journey have no other options, for there is no other pathway that leads to life other than the path of faith in Christ.‖29 McKnight, Kempson, and others who think that salvation or faith can be lost also have to assert that there is no security for the believer.30 Fellowship/Dependence rejection. Those who hold this view are confident that those described in Hebrews 6:4–5 are true believers.31 However, they define the ―falling McKnight, 58. Kempson, 570. 29 Kempson, 571. He also says, ―Ultimately, salvation is measured only at the end of life.‖ 30 McKnight tries to soften this fact by stating, ―[T]he only sin that can separate the believer from final salvation is the sin of apostasy‖ (McKnight, 58). It is beyond the scope of this paper to argue for the eternal security of the believer. 31 J. B. Rowell, ―Exposition of Hebrews Six: An Age-Long Battleground,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 94 (July-September 1937): 321– 342; Thomas Kent Oberholtzer, ―The Thorn-Infested Ground of Hebrews 6:4–12,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July-September 1988): 319–328; Randall C. Gleason, ―The Old Testament Background of 27 28
A Warning for True Believers
153
away‖ and judgment differently than any of the previous views. ―Falling away‖ is not a conscious rejection of salvation or loss of faith, but rather, it is a conscious rejection of Christ‘s high priestly ministry in their Christian life. Oberholtzer says, ―the ‗falling away‘ relates to the withdrawal from their Christian confidence and 32 worshipping function in God‘s house.‖ Gleason compares the Hebrew Christian‘s plight to that of the nation of Israel saying, ―Understanding παραπίπηω as expressing a decisive refusal to trust God which results in a general state of spiritual retrogression parallels the experience of the Israelites at Kadesh–barnea.‖33 The judgment suggested by those who hold this view varies some. Oberholtzer says, ―Theologically it is clear that present unfaithfulness will result in loss of reward at the judgment seat of Christ. The result for the believer is not loss of eternal salvation but a forfeiting of inheritance–rest, reward, and position in the coming millennial kingdom.‖34 In other words, present unfaithfulness will result in future punishment at the judgment seat of Christ when the unfaithful saint suffers the loss of eternal reward. Gleason, on the other hand, suggests that present unfaithfulness results in loss of present blessing and the present chastisement of the believer (even to the point of death). He says, ―In light of the Old Testament blessing– curse motif, the judgment in view in Hebrews 6:7–8 is best the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (JanuaryMarch 1998): 62–91; Rodney J. Decker, ―The Warning of Hebrews 6,‖ Journal of Ministry and Theology 5 (Fall 2001): 26–48. 32 Oberholtzer, 322–323. 33 Gleason, 82. Gleason identifies this refusal to trust God in Hebrews as the Jewish believer‘s desire to return to Judaism, which resulted in a persistent state of spiritual retrogression (91). Note that the author of Hebrews is comparing the experience of the individual NT saint to the experience of the nation of Israel in the OT. He is not comparing OT individuals to NT individuals. 34 Oberholtzer, 326. See also Rowell, 337.
154
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
understood as the forfeiture of blessing and the experience of temporal discipline rather than eternal destruction.‖35 This does not mean that there is not a future loss of reward at the judgment seat of Christ. The author is simply emphasizing the present results of unfaithfulness in order to encourage believers on to maturity. Summary of Proposed Views There are at least five different views regarding the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–8. Those views differ in three areas: genuineness of salvation, nature of falling away, and nature of the judgment. The views discussed in this paper are summarized in the following chart. Spiritual State
Fall Away
Judgment
Informed rejection
Professing believers
Reject the gospel
Eternal damnation
Hypothetical rejection
Genuine believers
Eternal damnation, though not really possible
Community rejection
Genuine believers
Reject the gospel, though not really possible Community fails to fulfill covenant obligations
True rejection
Genuine believers
Reject the gospel
Eternal damnation (lose salvation)
Fellowship rejection
Genuine believers
Refuse to trust Christ for daily living
Divine discipline
35
Gleason, 86–87.
Community is rejected by God
A Warning for True Believers
155
The Context of Hebrews 6:4–8 The proper interpretation of Hebrew 6:4–8 must be consistent with its context. Therefore, three aspects of its context are discussed. First, the context of the entire book of Hebrews is summarized. Second, the immediate context of the paragraph (6:4–8) is examined. Third, several Old Testament themes that form the background to the paragraph in Hebrews 6:4–8 are discussed. General Context of Hebrews 6:4–8 The book of Hebrews was most likely written to a group of Jewish believers who were part of the same house church.36 The location of this house church has been the subject of great debate.37 Fortunately, it is not necessary to specify the exact location of the church in order to interpret Hebrews 6:4–8. It is necessary, however, to clarify three introductory issues. First, what is the purpose and theme of the book of Hebrews? Second, what is the author‘s method for accomplishing that purpose? Third, what content does the author of Hebrews use to fulfill his purpose? Purpose and Theme of Hebrews. There is great difference of opinion as to the purpose and theme of the book of Hebrews.38 Hebrews 13:22 summarizes the book as For a good discussion see Lane, Hebrews 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary, xlvii–clvii. See also Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 685– 735. 37 Several locations have been suggested including Jerusalem, Palestine outside of Jerusalem, Rome, and others. This article works from the assumption that the church was in Rome. However, this does not greatly affect the interpretation of Hebrews 6. 38 Guthrie discusses four possible purposes: ―to warn Jewish Christians against apostasy to Judaism,‖ ―to challenge restricted Jewish Christians to embrace the world mission,‖ ―to announce 36
156
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
a ―word of exhortation.‖ This same phrase is used in Acts 13:15 in reference to an encouraging sermon. According to Lane, ―‗Word of exhortation‘ appears to be an idiomatic, fixed expression for a sermon in the Jewish-Hellenistic and early Christian circles.‖39 The book of Hebrews appears to be a written sermon intended to encourage its Jewish Christian readers. What is the author of this sermon encouraging these Jewish believers to do? The author of Hebrews is writing to encourage those associating with a particular New Testament house church to continue to remain faithful to Christ. In other words, do not fall away from true faith. This sentiment is stated in Hebrews 10:35–39, Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Members of this church had faced severe persecution in the past and were about to face it again (Heb. 10:32ff). At the same time, they had failed to mature in their Christian life (5:11–14). They appear to have begun to doubt the efficacy of Christ‘s sacrifice for their daily living (10:35). The author of Hebrews was afraid that these believers would the absolute character of Christianity to mainly Gentile Christians,‖ and ―to counteract an early type of heresy‖ (New Testament Introduction, 704–710). 39 Lane, Hebrews 1–8, lxx. See also Leon Morris, ―Hebrews,‖ The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 156.
A Warning for True Believers
157
make a conscious choice to live in their own strength and will and not by faith in Christ‘s provision and Lordship when renewed persecution came. Therefore, he exhorted them to strive to mature in their Christian lives by living a life that was committed to Christ. Lane summarizes the purpose of the book of Hebrews: The purpose of Hebrews is to strengthen, encourage, and exhort the tired and weary members of a house church to respond with courage and vitality to the prospect of renewed suffering in view of the gifts and resources God has lavished upon them. The writer‘s intention is to address the sagging faith of men and women within the group and to remind them of their responsibility to live actively in response to God‘s absolute claim upon their lives through the gospel.40 Several points merit mention in summary. First, Hebrews was written to encourage Christians. It was not written to warn unbelievers. Second, the general appeal of the book is to remain faithful to Christ and not fall away (i.e., live by faith). The appeal is not to make sure you are saved (i.e., hold on to saving faith). Third, the believers‘ lack of maturity caused the author of Hebrews to be concerned about their susceptibility to ―falling away.‖ It was not their lack of saving faith (or regeneration) that concerned the author of Hebrews. Method of Hebrews. It appears that the author of Hebrews used a form of written sermon to encourage believers to live by faith. How did the author of Hebrews organize his sermon to accomplish this end? The author of Hebrews encourages church attendees to remain faithful to Christ by means of providing a brief study in Christology. There are five main sections in the book which detail 40
Lane, Hebrews 1–8, c.
158
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
theological information about Christ. After each of these Christological sections, there is an explanation as to how the Christology should affect the way that a true believer should live. Therefore, the book of Hebrews shifts back and forth between Christology and Christian life. All of this doctrine and application is given in order to exhort genuine church saints to endure the severe trials and persecution they were about to face so that they would not suffer judgment for abandoning their trust and reliance upon the high priestly ministry of Christ. The doctrinal sections appear to form the basis for the practical applications (warning passages/parenesis).41 The author‘s primary purpose is not to teach the doctrine of Christology. It is to encourage his readers to live by faith. At the same time, some teaching of Christology was necessary to provide the basis of his practical applications. Buist Fanning says, The writer‘s compelling view of Christ is that of God‘s Son and High Priest exalted now to the position of greatest honor in God‘s presence. This picture of Christ gives the right perspective for seeing who He is and all that He fulfilled in God‘s eternal purpose by following the path of obedience set out for Him. It also gives a clear view of what He meant for the readers in their situation. With this view of the exalted Son, they could look in a fresh way at their own difficult circumstances and move forward with renewed hope along the trail He blazed for them.42 In summary, the author of Hebrews interweaves theology and practical application throughout his book in See Lane, Hebrews 1–8, c. Buist Fanning, ―A Theology of Hebrews,‖ in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 369. 41 42
A Warning for True Believers
159
order to encourage believers to live by faith in the face of impending persecution. Content of Hebrews. Current scholarship offers no agreement on how to divide the book of Hebrews.43 The purpose of this section is to suggest a working outline that adequately describes the interweaving of doctrinal and warning sections. This outline is made with the following presuppositions. First, the warning passages in Hebrews are based on the doctrinal teaching about Christ. Second, the purpose of the book of Hebrews is to encourage believers to live by faith. The following outline is suggested:
Introduction 1:1–3 Doctrine 1
1:4–14
Doctrine 2
2:5–18
Doctrine 3
5:1–10
Doctrine 4
7:1–10:18
Doctrine 5
11:1–40
→ → → → → →
Warning 1
2:1–4
Warning 2
3:1–4:16
Warning 3
5:11–6:20
Warning 4
10:19–39
Warning 5
12:1–29
Final Appeal 13:1–17 Conclusion 13:18–25
43 Lane says, ―There is at the present time no consensus regarding the literary structure of Hebrews‖ (Hebrews 1–8, lxxxviii).
160
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
This chart merely shows the flow of thought in the book of Hebrews. In order to understand the content of the book, it is necessary to further define each of the divisions in the chart. Introduction—God used to speak via prophets in a number of different ways, but now he speaks to believers through Christ, his Son. Doctrine 1—Christ has been exalted to the eternal throne, a position that is superior to the angels. Warning 1—Since Christ has been exalted to the throne of the eternal kingdom, Christians must not drift away from his message. Doctrine 2—Even though God put everything under the control of Christ, Christ is not ruling on earth at the present time; He humbly gave up control so that He could taste death in order to defeat Satan and provide atonement for sin, and, as a result God crowned Him with glory and honor. Warning 2—Since Christ humbly submitted to death to atone for sins, Christians must not let their persecution cause them to become hardened by sin and turn away from the benefits of true salvation; instead, they are to remain faithful, and thus, enter into the promised rest of salvation. Doctrine 3—After Christ learned obedience through suffering on the cross that qualified Him to be a high priest, God appointed Him to be the high priest in the heavenly tabernacle. Warning 3—Just as Christ learned obedience through suffering before He became high priest, Christians also need to learn obedience through their own suffering; it is not enough to simply avoid falling away, they must also learn and grow in their obedience. Doctrine 4—Christ‘s high priestly sacrifice on the cross was effective in atoning for sins in a way similar to Old Testament sacrifices; however, Christ‘s sacrifice was superior to Old Testament sacrifices because Christ as eternal high priest only had to sacrifice once for all to gain permanent access to the heavenly holy of holies.44 Warning Access to the heavenly holy of holies refers to the believer‘s ability to boldly approach God in fellowship. This access is made possible by the high priestly ministry of Christ. Christ‘s sacrifice 44
A Warning for True Believers
161
4—Since the blood of Christ‘s high priestly sacrifice has made us holy, Christians should not despise His blood and face certain judgment; instead they must do all they can to serve God (and help others serve God) while they await the promise to come. Doctrine 5—There are many Old Testament examples of believing men and women who served God by faith while waiting for what was promised; they did not fall away even though they did not see the promise fulfilled; New Testament believers have been given something much greater in Christ, so there is even less reason for them to fall away. Warning 5—In light of these Old Testament examples of believers living by faith, and since Christians have been granted access to the very God of heaven through Christ‘s high priestly ministry, they need to persevere in their service to God; they must not neglect or refuse this access (fellowship) to God by rejecting Christ‘s high priestly sacrifice or they will face certain judgment. Final appeal—Since believers are receiving an unshakable kingdom, they must continue to serve God with a proper reverence and awe for his person and his judgment, and with a genuine thankfulness for Christ‘s high priestly ministry. Conclusion—the author of Hebrews makes some concluding remarks regarding prayer, his readers‘ reception of his exhortation, and his plans to visit his readers. Specific Context of Hebrews 6:4–8 Now that the general context has been established, it is helpful to discuss the specific context of Hebrews 6:4–8. In order to define the specific context of this paragraph, it is necessary to discuss the section in which it is located (5:1– 6:20). The following outline is suggested:
on the cross makes continual fellowship with God possible. See Hebrews 4:14–16; 10:19–22.
162 I.
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Christ was Appointed by God as High Priest in the Heavenly Temple (5:1–10) A. Every high priest is chosen from among the people to represent the people before God (5:1–3) B. Jesus did not appoint Himself high priest, but God gave Him this position after Jesus experienced human suffering that qualified Him for the position) (5:4–10) II. How Should I Live Then? Just as Christ learned obedience through suffering before becoming high priest—you also need to learn obedience from your persecution; it is not enough to simply avoid falling away, you must also learn and grow in your obedience (5:11–6:20) A. There is much more to learn by Christ‘s high priesthood, but your lack of maturity has made it difficult for you to understand (5:11–14) B. Abandon your spiritual laziness so that we can leave the elementary teachings and go on to teach you (Lord willing) a mature presentation of Jesus‘ priesthood (6:1–20) 1. Be diligent in your spiritual life so that we do not have to teach you the elementary foundation of your faith again (6:1–3) 2. The reason you need to be diligent in these elementary things is because there is no other adequate foundation on which to grow, and failure to do so will result in certain judgment (6:4–8) a) Christians who fall away (return to a sacrificial system) cannot move on to spiritual maturity because they are denying the efficacy of Christ‘s sacrifice, and they lay a false foundation (6:4–5) b) Christians who fall away do not produce the fruit of the Spirit and are in grave danger of judgment that is similar to the curses of the Mosaic covenant (6:7–8)
A Warning for True Believers 3.
163
We are confident of better things for you than judgment; we trust that you will diligently mature until the end, and then receive the inheritance promised to you (6:9–20)
In summary, Hebrews 6:4–8 provides some motivation for the believer to press on to maturity. Hebrews 5:11–14 describes the spiritual laziness that the believers were demonstrating. In 6:1–3, the author of Hebrews appeals for these apathetic Christians to press on to spiritual maturity. Verse 4 begins with the word ―for‖ (γa,ρ), indicating that what follows is a reason why the believer should press on to spiritual maturity. Donald Hagner says, The manner in which this section is connected with the preceding material, with the logical connective ―for‖ (untranslated in the NIV), suggest that if the readers do not ―go on‖ into fullness of Christian doctrine, they will be in grave danger of falling away altogether, back into Judaism, thereby committing apostasy. In their present state, indeed, even their grasp of the ―elementary truths of God‘s words‖ (5:12) is questionable. Thus, as further motivation for the readers to press on to a mature understanding of their Christian faith, the author points out the seriousness of apostasy.45 Hebrews 6:4–8, then, appears to be motivation for a believer to abandon spiritual laziness and press on to spiritual maturity. Donald A. Hagner, Hebrews, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 90, 91. Hagner identifies apostasy as the unforgivable sin of Mark 3:29 and 1 John 5:16. Even if ―falling away‖ is defined as something other than apostasy, Hagner‘s point is still valid. The content of verses 4–8 provide a motivation for the believer to press on to spiritual maturity. 45
164
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
The Old Testament Background of Hebrews 6:4–8 The book of Hebrews makes frequent comparisons between the Old Testament Mosaic system and the New Testament believer. A proper understanding of the Mosaic system is a prerequisite for a proper interpretation of the book of Hebrews. Several aspects of this system are relevant to the interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–8. These aspects are: the high priesthood, the purpose of the tabernacle, the purpose of animal sacrifices, and the concept of blessing and cursing. OT high priesthood. The high priest in the Mosaic system was the mediator between God and his people. He was responsible for all of the sacrificial responsibilities of the tabernacle (and later the temple). McCready summarizes the high priest‘s duties: The primary function of the high priest was to administer and direct the sacrificial system. He alone was allowed to go behind the veil of the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:2). He dealt with the sin offerings whose blood was brought into the sanctuary of the temple (Lev. 4:3– 21). The high priest‘s responsibilities included all the sacrificial activities that took place inside the temple, either with his direct involvement or under his supervision.46 The author of Hebrews calls Christ a high priest throughout the book.47 Christ functions as the high priest W.O. McCready, s.v. ―Priest, High,‖ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 3:962. 47 For example, 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:1, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21; 8:1–2; 9:11; 10:21; 12:24; 13:11–12. Fanning says, ―The picture of Jesus Christ as High Priest is the most distinctive theme of 46
A Warning for True Believers
165
for the New Testament believer. Christ has entered the heavenly holy of holies on the believer‘s behalf to provide continual, permanent access to God (Heb 6:14–16; 10:19– 21). Christ the high priest is also presented in Hebrews as Christ the sacrifice (Heb 10:10–12). Mosaic priests offered animals. Christ offered Himself. Purpose of the tabernacle. After Israel‘s exodus from Egypt and their accepting of the Mosaic covenant, God commanded his people to build a tabernacle. The purpose of the tabernacle was to provide a dwelling place for God (Exod 25:8). This dwelling place would be the place where God‘s people would come to worship and fellowship with Him. The tabernacle was God‘s means for restoring a fellowship similar to the kind man had with God in the Garden of Eden. Several parallels have been suggested between the creation accounts and the construction of the tabernacle.48 Sailhamer concludes, ―By depicting the Garden of Eden in conjunction with the tabernacle, the writer [of the Pentateuch] apparently wants to show the purpose of the tabernacle as a return to the Garden of Eden.‖49 Man had perfect fellowship with God in the Garden. While the tabernacle was designed to provide a place for Edenic-type worship, it only had limited success. God took up residence in the holy of holies; only the high priest could Hebrews, and it is central to the theology of the book. As already stated, its doctrine of sonship is foundational to its teaching about Christ‘s priesthood. Likewise, its view of salvation, of the Christian life, and of salvation-history are all vitally connected to the theme of His high priesthood‖ (―A Theology of Hebrews,‖ 388). 48 See Victor Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 233–234; and John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 300– 301. 49 Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 300.
166
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
enter his presence and that only once each year. This ministry of the high priest is referred to in Hebrews 6:19– 20. Christ‘s high priestly sacrifice provided a means for the New Testament believer to have continual access to the heavenly holy of holies (and thus, the ability to enter God‘s presence to worship). The ordinary Old Testament believer could only worship God through the ministry of the priesthood and could never have direct access to God‘s presence. The Old Testament believer went to the tabernacle to worship God. He did not go to maintain his salvation. The tabernacle was a place of fellowship and worship, not a place to procure salvation. Purpose of animal sacrifices. Levitical sacrifices were never intended to atone for sin resulting in a person‘s salvation. They were only designed to restore fellowship between God and the Old Testament believer when inadvertent or unintentional sins had interrupted that fellowship. Neither were animal sacrifices ever capable of atoning for sins resulting in salvation (Heb 10:4, 11). They were only able to atone for sins resulting in restored fellowship between a believer and God. Carpenter says, Both Abba and Saydon pointed out the shortcomings of the OT sacrificial system. It was not meant to be final; it had a limited range of effectiveness, operating only within the covenant. Only sins of ignorance or of human frailty were forgiven within this cultic system. No sacrifice could atone for deliberate, rebellious acts against God that were adamantly continued.50
50 Carpenter, s.v. ―Sacrifices and Offerings in the Old Testament,‖ International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 4: 272.
A Warning for True Believers
167
There appears to have been no sacrifice that could atone (restore fellowship) for an intentional sin.51 However, this may not necessarily be the case. The sins listed in Leviticus 6 are surely intentional. They include sins such as keeping something that someone loans you and then lying about it, stealing from someone, and finding something and lying to the person who lost it. These sins are atoned for by a trespass offering. This offering is only given after restitution to the other person is made. It appears that an intentional sin can be moved into the category of unintentional by means of confession and restitution.52 A sacrifice then can be made to restore fellowship with God. Therefore, the only time a sin cannot be sacrificed for in the Mosaic system is when the one who committed the sin is unrepentant. It is not the person who intentionally sins who is barred from fellowship in the Old Testament, but the person who is not repentant of their sin. Hamilton says that this is exactly what is referred to in the book of Hebrews. To say this is to echo exactly what is said by Hebrews. Compare the language of Hebrews 6:4, 6, ―For it is impossible to restore again to repentance . . . if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God. . . .‖ Or this, ―if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins‖ (Heb. 10:26). It 51 It is sometimes argued that this is what makes Christ‘s sacrifice better. His sacrifice atoned for intentional and unintentional sins. 52 Hamilton says ―To solve the dilemma—how can deliberate sins be forgiven?—we may turn to a variant of Leviticus 5:14–6:7, the passage in Numbers is that confession is essential in the case of a deliberate sin. It must succeed conviction and precede restitution (Num. 5:7). Thus the sin moves into the category of inadvertent sins and may be expiated‖ (Handbook on the Pentateuch, 261).
168
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is the absence of confession and contrition that bars the way of the backslider into restored, redemptive fellowship with Christ.53
Blessings and Curses. The concept of blessing and cursing is a common theme throughout the Old Testament. Both blessings and curses are recorded in Deuteronomy 28–30 as part of the Mosaic covenant. Blessings and curses were a normal part of the covenant relationship during this time period. Walton and Matthews conclude, Curses and blessings are standard elements of the ancient treaties of the third, second and first millennia B.C., though they vary in specificity and proportion from one period to another. Since the treaty documents were confirmed by an oath in the names of deities, the curses and blessings were usually those that were to be brought by the deities rather than the parties to the treaty. Here that is of little difference because God is a party to the covenant rather than simply the enforcer of it. Many of the curses found here are found in similar wording in the Assyrian treaties of the seventh century B.C. Similarities can also be seen in the Atrahisis Epic, where, prior to sending the flood, the gods send various plagues on the land. These include the categories of disease, drought and
Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, 262. Hamilton‘s point is valid in Hebrews 10 when there is no mention of repentance. But it is off the mark slightly with regard to Hebrews 6:4–8. In Hebrews 6, even repentance cannot prevent the infliction of judgment (see interpretation later in this paper). 53
A Warning for True Believers
169
famine, sale of family members into slavery, and cannibalism.54 Blessings were given when a covenant people fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant. Curses were sent when the covenant people disobeyed the stipulations of the covenant. This is also true for the Mosaic covenant (Deut 28:1ff). In the Mosaic system, cursing could be reversed if there was genuine repentance (Deut 30), though the consequences of sin were not always removed. God chose to incorporate blessings and curses into the Mosaic system to give visible expression to his response to the choices of man. Hamilton says, Toward the law no believer can be neutral. Either he will choose to live by it or he will choose to ignore it. What Moses is interested in establishing here is the fact of consequences, or retribution, a divine response that is commensurate with the choices made by the individual.55 God used the curses of the Mosaic system to draw Israel back to a place of obedience. Throughout the history of the nation of Israel, there is a cycle of obedience (blessing), disobedience (curses), and repentance (retracted curse/restored blessing). This cycle indicates that Israel never lost her position as God‘s covenant people when she rebelled. She only experienced the curses of the covenant. The blessings included wealth, abundant crops, land, and proliferation of family. Curses included poverty, drought, captivity, and infertility. Sailhamer likens the blessings to the experience in the Garden of Eden and the
John Walton and Victor Matthews, The Bible Background Commentary: Genesis–Deuteronomy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 263. 55 Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, 455. 54
170
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
curses to the experience of the post-fall generation.56 The illustration in Hebrews 6:7–8 is a direct allusion to the Old Testament blessing and cursing concept. Verse 7 refers to blessings for obedience, while verse 8 refers to the curses that result from disobedience. Cursing under the Mosaic system never removed anyone from the covenant community. It is logical, then, to conclude that cursing (God‘s response to the disobedient believer) mentioned in the New Testament never removed anyone from God‘s people. Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–8 The interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–8 must address the three issues raised at the beginning of this article. First, are those mentioned in verses 4–5 truly saved or not? Second, what is the exact nature of the ―falling away‖ mentioned in verse 6? Third, what is the judgment described in verses 7– 8? Saved or Not? There are several descriptive phrases in verses 4–5 used to identify the person who ―falls away.‖ Each of these phrases is evaluated individually first. Then the context of the phrases is discussed to aid in their interpretation. Finally, a conclusion will be offered for the question of whether or not they are truly saved. Once enlightened. The first phrase used to describe the person in Hebrews 6:4–8 is ―those who were once Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative, 471. He says, ―The nature of the blessings is reminiscent of the blessings in the Garden of Eden—enjoyment of God‘s good land. . . . The description of the curse is reminiscent of the curse after the Fall in the Genesis narratives—affliction and ultimately exile from God‘s land.‖ 56
A Warning for True Believers
171
enlightened‖ (τοὺσ ἅπαξ φωτιςθέντασ). A case can be made that ―enlightened‖ means that the person heard and believed the gospel. The same word is used in Hebrews 10:32 of these same people to refer to true salvation.57 Also the noun form of ―enlightened‖ is used twice in 2 Corinthians 4 in reference to true salvation.58 Finally, the adverb ―once‖ argues in favor of a reference to a conversion experience. It is a reference to a once for all enlightenment at the beginning of the Christian life.59 The cumulative weight of this evidence suggests that ―those who were once enlightened‖ are truly saved people. However, Compton, Grudem, and others make an adequate case that the word ―enlightened‖ is inconclusive with regard to salvation. First, the use in 10:32 does not necessarily mean regeneration. Compton says, The expression in 10:32, ―after having been enlightened,‖ is parallel with the expression in 10:26, ―after having received a knowledge of the truth.‖ There is no indication in the latter that receiving a knowledge of the truth suggests the idea of regeneration. It simply means that the readers
57 Since Hebrews 6:4–8 and 10:26–31 are parallel passages and 10:32 obviously refers to true salvation, it is logical that ―enlightened‖ in 6:4 refers to true salvation. For an excellent comparison of Hebrews 6:4–8 and 10:26–31, see Lane, Hebrews 9–13, 296–297. 58 2 Corinthians 4:4, 6 says, ―lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ . . . should shine upon them . . . For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.‖ 59 Grudem says, ―That the word hapax can be used to describe a one-time, never to be repeated event is clear, for example, from its use in Hebrews 9:26–28‖ (―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 138).
172
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal had been taught or instructed in the truth of God‘s Word.60
If Compton is correct, then neither 6:4 nor 10:32 necessarily refer to true salvation. They simply mean that the person understood the gospel. Second, Grudem argues that the noun form of ―enlightened‖ in 2 Corinthians 4 itself does not necessarily mean true salvation. It is the context of those uses that gives them the meaning of true salvation. The noun form of ―enlightened‖ itself is not a technical term for salvation.61 Therefore, 2 Corinthians 4 does not necessitate that Hebrews 6:4 is definitely speaking of truly saved people. Third, Compton suggests that the adverb ―once‖ does not have to mean a one-time conversion experience. It could also mean a one-time understanding experience. This use might be paraphrased, ―those who once came to understand (and later rejected).‖ Compton suggests that ―once‖ should not even be understood as a once-for-all action. He argues that it is best to translate it ―initially‖ or ―at the first.‖62 Therefore, the adverb ―once‖ does not argue for the fact that these people were truly saved. Fourth, Grudem concludes that the word ―enlightened‖ is not a technical term for salvation. Grudem summarizes, 60 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 148. Compton has overstated his case by saying that there is no indication that 10:26 refers to regeneration. The result of sinning willfully in 10:26 is the judgment mentioned in 10:27–29. In 10:30 the author of Hebrews says of this judgment, ―The Lord shall judge His people.‖ The phrase ―His people‖ is an obvious reference to truly regenerate people. Therefore, 10:26 likely refers to truly saved people. 61 Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 141. 62 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 147–148. The word ―once‖ is used in Hebrews 9:7 to refer to a once each year event, so the conclusion that it does not necessitate a once for all event is accurate.
A Warning for True Believers
173
―It occurs eleven times in the New Testament, sometimes just referring to a literal giving of light by a lamp (Luke 11:36), and other times referring to learning in general, not specifically a learning that results in salvation.‖63 John 1:9 refers to Jesus as the ―true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.‖ This is an obvious example of a case where ―enlightened‖ (lights) cannot mean true salvation, because not every man is truly saved. Compton, Grudem, and others give adequate reason to conclude that the phrase ―those who were once enlightened‖ itself does not have to mean truly saved. It could also refer to a person who was only mentally ―enlightened‖ (i.e., understood the gospel). Ultimately, context must determine the exact meaning of this phrase.64 Tasted the heavenly gift. The second phrase used to describe those in Hebrews 6:4–5 is ―have tasted of the heavenly gift‖ (γεσζαμe,νοσς ηε ηῆς δωρεᾶς ηῆς evποσρανi,οσ). A good case can be made that this phrase is intended to mean true salvation. First, the author of Hebrews uses the word ―tasted‖ to mean a full and complete experience of something. For example, Hebrews 2:9 says that Jesus ―should taste death for every man.‖ Jesus did not sample death to see if He wanted a fuller experience of it. He had a full and complete experience of death. In the same way, those in Hebrews 6:4–5 had a full and complete experience of the ―heavenly gift.‖ Second, the ―heavenly gift‖ is most likely a reference to salvation. While the exact phrase ―heavenly gift‖ is not used elsewhere in Scripture, salvation is often referred to as a gift in the New Testament (Rom 5:15, 17; Eph 2:8–9).
Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 141. The evidence from the context is discussed later in this article. Therefore, a decision concerning the best interpretation here is delayed until then. 63 64
174
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Therefore, the entire phrase means that those in 6:4–5 have had a complete and full salvation experience. A case can also be made that this phrase itself does not necessarily mean the person was truly saved. First, the word ―tasted‖ can mean ―a nibble.‖ This ―nibble‖ may or may not be followed by a fuller experience.65 In this case the person would have had a taste of the heavenly gift and based on that taste could decide if they wanted to ―eat‖ (accept) the whole gift. Second, not every figurative use of the word ―tasted‖ means to experience salvation. For example, 1 Peter 2:3 speaks of tasting the Lord‘s goodness. Compton concludes from this that ―every figurative use of taste in the NT involves a genuine experience, not every use involves a saving experience.‖66 Since the word ―tasted‖ itself does not have to refer to salvation, something in the context must supply that meaning. Third, the ―heavenly gift‖ does not necessarily mean salvation either. It is used in the New Testament for Christ (John 4:10), the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17), and justification/salvation (Rom 5:15, 17; Eph 2:8–9). It is possible to experience a ministry of the Holy Spirit without actually being truly saved. Grudem concludes,
See Grudem, ―Perseverance of Saints,‖ 145. Grudem offers Matthew 27:34 as an example of this meaning. It says of Jesus on the cross, ―When he had tasted thereof, he would not drink it.‖ Grudem also says this meaning is true when ―tasted‖ is used in a figurative sense. He cites Josephus (The Jewish War 2.158) as an example. Josephus says of the Essenes, ―[T]hey irresistibly attract all who have once tasted their philosophy.‖ 66 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 149. Compton also says, ―While τρηζηός [goodness] in 1 Peter 2:3 does appear to refer to the saving goodness of God, that does not prove that γεύομαι [taste] carries this sense. This meaning of 1 Peter 2:3 is based on the meaning of τρηζηός, not γεύομαι.‖ 65
A Warning for True Believers
175
In fact . . . it is likely that Hebrews 6:4 means that those who ―tasted the heavenly gift‖ had some experience of the power of the Holy Spirit—perhaps in convicting them of sin (cf. John 16:8), perhaps in casting a demon out of them (cf. Matt. 12:28), or perhaps in receiving some kind of healing (cf. Luke 4:14, 40; 1 Cor. 12:9). But such experiences of the Holy Spirit do not themselves indicate salvation, for it is possible to ―resist the Holy Spirit‖ (Acts 7:51), and even, for those who are under conviction from the Holy Spirit, to resist so strongly that one commits ―blasphemy against the Spirit‖ (Matt. 12:31).67 It seems that the phrase ―have tasted of the heavenly gift‖ is inconclusive as to its intended meaning. It could possibly refer to either a saved or an unsaved person. Therefore, context must be allowed to determine its exact meaning. Partakers of the Holy Spirit. The third phrase used to describe those in Hebrews 6:4–5 is they ―were made partakers of the Holy Spirit‖ (μεηo,τοσς γενηθe,νηας πνεu,μαηος a`γίοσ). The most likely interpretation of this phrase is that it refers to true salvation. In Hebrews 3:14 it is stated that true believers were ―made partakers of Christ.‖ There seems to be little doubt that 3:14 refers to saved individuals. In fact, Compton says, ―It is difficult to see from this verse how ‗partakers of Christ‘ could be describing other than those who are saved.‖68 It seems likely that ―partakers in Christ‖ is parallel to ―partakers of the Holy Ghost.‖69 Therefore, Hebrews 6:4 most likely refers to truly saved people. Grudem, ―Perseverance of Saints,‖ 146. Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 151. 69 In addition, Hebrews 12:8 speaks of true believers ―partaking‖ in the discipline of the Lord. Those who do not partake in this discipline are not God‘s children. The author of 67 68
176
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Attempts are made to argue that the phrase ―partakers of the Holy Ghost‖ refers to unsaved people.70 Compton argues that it is possible for the term ―partakers of the heavenly calling‖ in Hebrews 3:1 to refer to a general calling of God through the gospel.71 Not all who experience God‘s call respond to it, and some who do respond are not genuine. Therefore, the word ―partakers‖ in 3:1 does not necessarily mean ―saved.‖ The same could also be true for 6:4. ―Partakers of the Holy Spirit‖ may refer to participation in some non-salvific ministry of the Holy Spirit.72 Hebrews seems to use the word ―partake‖ with reference to truly saved people. 70 No one would say that this is the natural or likely interpretation of the text. However, it is argued that it is at least possible that the phrase refers to the unsaved. Compton admits, ―This is perhaps the most difficult statement in vv. 4–5 to counter‖ (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 151). 71 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 152. This is very unlikely since the phrase ―partakers of the heavenly calling‖ is parallel to the phrase ―holy brethren.‖ ―Holy brethren‖ is definitely a reference to saved people. 72 Compton identifies these non-salvific ministries of the Holy Spirit either as experiencing the general convicting ministry of the Spirit, or as witnessing the use of spiritual gifts, or as benefiting from someone else‘s use of the gifts of the Spirit (i.e., being healed, etc.) (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 152). Grudem goes a step further in identifying these non-salvific ministries of the Holy Spirit when he says, ―The phrase may mean simply that these people had come into the church and there had experienced some of the benefits of the Holy Spirit in answers to prayer or even in using some spiritual gifts. All that we can say with confidence is that they were partakers of some of the benefits that the Holy Spirit gives‖ (emphasis his] (―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 148). Grudem mistakenly identifies answers to prayer and spiritual gifts as non-salvific ministries of the Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12 teaches that the Spirit gives gifts to those who are baptized into the body of Christ (i.e. truly regenerate). Rather than argue for Hebrews 6:4 referring to unsaved people as Grudem wishes, he has argued for truly regenerate people in 6:4.
A Warning for True Believers
177
The most likely understanding of the phrase ―were made partakers of the Holy Spirit‖ is that it is a reference to salvation. Arguments that the phrase refers to unsaved people are not convincing.73 However, there is a very remote possibility that the phrase could refer to unsaved. Therefore, context is allowed to determine interpretation. Tasted the good word and powers. The fourth phrase used to refer to those in Hebrews 6:4–5 is they ―have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come‖ (καλo.ν γεσζαμe,νοσς θεοῦ r`ῆμα δσνa,μεις ηε μe,λλονηος αivῶνος). This phrase is probably parallel in thought to the content of Hebrews 2:1–4. The ―word of God‖ is the gospel message, while the ―powers‖ refer to the miraculous signs given to confirm that gospel.74 The question of the extent of the experience (―tasted‖) still remains, though. Did those in Hebrews 6:4–5 merely understand the gospel and witness the miracles, or did they accept the gospel and perform the miracles (spiritual gifts)? Either scenario is possible. Therefore, the context of 6:4–5 must be the determining factor in making a decision. Context determines? Compton argues that the wider context argues in favor of the view that those in Hebrews 6:4–5 are unsaved.75 The only parts of the context that Compton uses are those verses that follow 6:4–5.76 He
Compton‘s attempt to identify the ―calling‖ in Hebrews 3:1 as a general call for all men is troublesome. ―Calling‖ in 3:1 is synonymous with the phrase ―holy brethren.‖ It is very difficult to attribute the phrase ―holy brethren‖ to all mankind. It is almost certainly a reference to truly saved people. 74 Compton does an excellent job substantiating this thought (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 152–154). 75 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 155–167. 76 Compton says, ―The decision about the spiritual status of those in view must be based on evidence from the wider context, 73
178
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
makes three points. First, ―fall away‖ in verse 6 means apostasy. Second, the judgment mentioned in verses 7–8 refers to eternal condemnation of the unsaved. Third, verse 9 can be paraphrased, ―In spite of the fact we were talking about things that belonged, not to salvation, but to divine condemnation and judgment, nevertheless, we are confident that you are saved.‖77 Compton‘s logic can be summarized as follows: 1) Presupposition—it is impossible for a saved person to lose his salvation; 2) Premise 1—the spiritual status of those in 6:4–5 is uncertain; 3) Premise 2—these people reject the gospel of Christ and face eternal condemnation; and 4) Conclusion—therefore, the people mentioned in 6:4–5 must be unsaved. Grudem makes a similar conclusion: While the positive experiences listed in verses 4–6 do not provide us enough information to know whether the people were truly saved or not, the committing of apostasy and holding Christ up to contempt do reveal the true nature of those who fall away: all along they have been like bad ground that can only bear bad fruit. If the metaphor of the thorn-bearing land explains verses 4–6 (as it surely does), then their falling away shows that they were never saved in the first place.78 There are at least three problems with Compton and Grudem‘s conclusion. First, it is based as much on theology as it is context.79 It is their allegiance to the perseverance of the saints that forces them to say that those in verses 4–5 particularly from the verses that follow‖ (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 155). 77 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 166. 78 Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 156–157. 79 While theology does play an important role in determining the meaning of a text, both Compton and Grudem imply that it is the context alone that determines spiritual status in 6:4–5.
A Warning for True Believers
179
are unsaved. The meaning of verses 6–9 does not necessitate they were unsaved. Many have suggested they were saved and then lost their salvation. The truth is that Compton and Grudem‘s interpretation is theologically driven rather than contextually driven as they claim. Second, Compton and Grudem base their conclusions of verses 4–5 on their interpretation of verses 6–9. They say that context must determine the meaning of verses 4–5, because the phrases themselves are inconclusive.80 However, they do not apply this same logic to verses 6–9. The certainty they attribute to their interpretation of verses 6–9 is not as strong as they suggest. Other legitimate interpretations have been offered for verses 6–9, making them as inconclusive as verses 4–5. Compton and Grudem‘s logic could easily be reversed as follows: 1) Presupposition—it is impossible for a saved person to lose his salvation; 2) Premise 1—the interpretation of the falling away and judgment in verses 6–9 is uncertain; 3) the people in verses 4–5 are truly saved; and 4) Conclusion—therefore, verses 6–9 do not refer to rejection of the gospel and eternal damnation. Note the contrasting logic between those who argue for professing believers and those who argue for true believers in the chart below.
Compton says, ―All that really needs to be demonstrated with vv. 4–5 is that the phrases themselves are ambiguous or undetermined concerning the spiritual status of those in view‖ (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 146). 80
180
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Professing Believers
True Believers
Presupposition
It is impossible for a saved person to lose his salvation
It is impossible for a saved person to lose his salvation
Premise 1
The spiritual status of those in 6:4–5 is uncertain
The interpretation of the falling away and judgment in verses 6–9 is uncertain
Premise 2
These people reject the gospel of Christ and face eternal condemnation
The people in 6:4–5 are truly saved
Conclusion
The people mentioned in 6:4–5 must be unsaved
Verses 6–9 do not refer to rejection of the gospel and eternal damnation
Again Compton and Grudem‘s conclusion is not based on the entire context. Their conclusion is based on what they perceive as the more conclusive element of the two inconclusive elements in verses 4–9. If the interpretation of both verses 4–5 and 6–9 is inconclusive, it would be better to let the broader context determine both elements. Third, Compton and Grudem‘s view does not make logical sense out of the ―for‖ at the beginning of verse 4. Verses 4–8 are intended to be a motivation for the believer to go on to maturity (i.e., fulfill the exhortation in 6:1–3). According to Compton and Grudem, it is impossible for truly saved people to apostatize; therefore, the teaching of verses 4–8 concerns unsaved people. Thus, the argument of Hebrews 6 would be for Christians to move on to maturity, because unsaved people will fall away and face judgment. This makes no sense. How could judgment they will never face motivate true believers to move on to maturity? One might suggest that the exhortation is to make sure you are saved, because if you are not you will face judgment.
A Warning for True Believers
181
However, Hebrews 5:11–6:3 and 6:9–12 present believers who need to mature, not a group that needed to make sure they were saved. There are at least six factors in the broader context that suggest those in Hebrews 6:4–5 are truly saved individuals. First, the entire section from 5:1 through 6:20 is set in the context of the high priestly ministry of Christ. The high priest in the Old Testament entered the holy of holies once each year in order to restore fellowship and worship. It had nothing to do with anyone‘s salvation. The same is true in Hebrews 5:1–6:20. Christ entered the heavenly holy of holies (6:19–20) in order to restore fellowship and worship.81 Christ has provided the believer permanent and uninterrupted access to God through his ministry as high priest for the believer. This ministry of Christ is the theme of the entire section of Hebrews 5:1–6:20. Second, Hebrews 5:8 says that Christ learned obedience through the suffering that He faced. Verse 9 says that this suffering made Him ―perfect.‖ This is obviously not a reference to Christ‘s salvation, because He needed none. The author of Hebrews says that Christ learned obedience through suffering as an example for all believers to follow. Believers are to learn obedience (mature) from the suffering that they face. The recipients of the book of Hebrews were about to face severe persecution once again. The author of Hebrews was encouraging them to use it as a means of growth. Third, the concern of Hebrews 5:11–14 is the spiritual immaturity of true believers. There is no discussion as to It is true that Christ‘s sacrifice provided salvation from the penalty of sin which is received at the moment of regeneration. His sacrifice also provided for salvation from the power of sin which involves a continual struggle in the believer‘s earthly life. Daily maturing in Christ is the theme of 5:1–6:20. Therefore, it seems likely that the high priestly ministry of Christ referred to in 5:1–6:20 is salvation from the power of sin for daily living (i.e., restoring and maintaining fellowship and worship). 81
182
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
whether these people are saved or not. The entire passage assumes salvation and laments spiritual immaturity. Fourth, the appeal in Hebrews 6:1–3 is for the true believer to progress in his spiritual maturity. This appeal would be senseless for an unsaved person.82 Again, salvation is assumed in this passage. Fifth, Hebrews 6:9–10 recounts past and present fruit of the Spirit that accompanies salvation. The author of Hebrews states that the recipients of his exhortation have produced this fruit. Therefore, the author of Hebrews must believe his readers were truly saved. Sixth, Hebrews 6:11–12 encourages true believers to be diligent in their Christian walk and not slothful. It does not say that they should become saved, because it is assumed that they are true believers already. In conclusion, the entire context of Hebrews 5:1–6:20 is an appeal to true believers. The entire context encourages true believers to grow spiritually and seems to indicate that those in 6:4–5 are truly saved. This is especially true when 6:4–8 is designed to motivate true believers to grow spiritually. Information about a judgment they will never face would not encourage true believers to mature. The judgment has to be a real possibility for believers in order for it to encourage them to avoid that judgment. 82 Note Kent‘s response to this concern in footnote 12 of this paper. Thomas Schreiner and Ardel Caneday (following Berkouwer) offer another possible response to this concern. They claim, ―Warnings and admonitions, however, express what is capable of being conceived with the mind. They speak of conceivable or imaginable, not of things likely to happen. . . . Thus, all warnings caution us concerning conceivable consequences. They do not confront us with an uncertain future. They do not say that we may perish. Rather, they caution us lest we perish. They warn that we will surely perish if we fail to heed God‘s call in the gospel‖ (The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and Assurance [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001], 207–208).
A Warning for True Believers
183
Nature of Falling Away There are three words or phrases in Hebrews 6:6 that describe what it means to ―fall away.‖ Each of these is discussed individually. Fall away. The first word used to describe falling away is ―fall away‖ (παραπεζo,νηας).83 There are two broad categories of understanding concerning the nature of falling away. Some suggest that falling away is absolute apostasy, a total rejection of Christ and his gospel, an alignment with those who crucified Christ.84 Others suggest that falling away is a serious sin that a believer can commit which is usually identified as a decisive refusal to trust Christ‘s high priestly ministry for help in daily living.85 The word ―fall away‖ itself does not help in choosing which view is correct, because it does not have an object in Hebrews 6:6.86 It is uncertain 83 It is probably best to take this participle as an adjectivalsubstantival use (as does the NASB, ASV, and NRSV), rather than an adverbial-conditional use (as does the NIV, KJV, and RSV). See John Sproule, ―παραπεζόνηας in Hebrews 6:6,‖ Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981): 327–332. 84 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 156–158; McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 36–43; Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 153–154; Hohenstein, ―A Study of Hebrews 6:4–8,‖ 536–537; Some like Hohenstein liken this apostasy to the unpardonable sin (Nicole, ―Some Comments on Hebrews 6:4–6,‖ 362–363). 85 Oberholtzer, ―The Thorn-Infested Ground,‖ 322–323; Gleason, ―The Old Testament Background,‖ 78–83. 86 BDAG defines παραπi,πτω as ―to fail to follow through on a commitment.‖ In other words, the word itself is not a technical term for apostasy. Without a qualifier to clarify what one falls away from, its meaning in Hebrews 6:6 is uncertain. W. Bauder says, ―The fig. sense peculiar to the NT, to lose salvation, and so, to go to eternal destruction, is found in the Gospels, Paul, Heb., and Rev‖ (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], 1:610–611). He then
184
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
from what one falls away. Neither does its use in the LXX aid one‘s decision.87 Gleason concludes, pαραπi,πηω does not express the idea of an absolute apostasy involving a complete turning away from all belief in God. Not a mild term for sin, it denotes a serious sinful act or attitude against God. The exact nature of the sin must be determined from the context.88 A review of all of the NT uses of παραπίπηω and its cognate group89 demonstrates that there are two possible metaphorical uses (see chart below). ―Falling away‖ could mean to reject the gospel, although this use is not clearly illustrated in the New Testament. The second possible metaphorical meaning for παραπi,πηω would be ―to fail to live the Christian life in a ‗Christian‘ manner‖ (trust the high priestly ministry of Christ for daily living). The context must
proceeds to also give examples of failure to live the Christian life successfully rather than losing one‘s salvation (e.g., Romans 14:4). 87 Michaelis defines παραπίπηω in the LXX as ―to be in vain,‖ ―not to be carried out,‖ ―to sin.‖ ―In all of the Ez. refs. the context shows that what is at issue is a culpable mistake, of sin.‖ Nowhere in his discussion of its use in the LXX does he mention apostasy (TDNT [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:170). 88 Gleason, ―The Old Testament Background,‖ 81. This is contrary to Compton‘s suggestion that the LXX argues for the idea that ―fall away‖ means absolute apostasy (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 156–157). 89 Warren Trenchard lists the following words as part of the cognate group of παραπίπηω( πίπηω( ἀναπίπηω( ἀνηιπίπηω( ἀποπίπηω( γονσπεηε,ω( ἐκπίπηω( ἐμπίπηω( ἐπιπίπηω( καηαπίπηω( περιπίπηω( πρoζπι,πηω( ζσμπίπηω( πηῶμα( πηῶζις( παράπηωμα( διοπε,ηης, προηε,ηης (The Student’s Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992] 90).
A Warning for True Believers
185
determine which of these two possibilities is intended in Hebrews 6:6. Justification
Sanctification
Glorification
Delivered from:
Penalty of sin
Power of sin
Presence of sin
Biblical support
Acts 2:21 Eph 2:5, 8 1 Tim 1:15; 2:4
Rom 8:1ff Phil 2:12 1 Tim 4:16 Jas 1:21
Rom 8:23–24 Rom 8:30 2 Tim 2:10
Not clearly illustrated
Failure in Christian life
Impossible
Luke 2:34–Israel Acts 7:51–Israel Rom 11:11, 12, 22–Israel Gal 5:4–?? 1 Tim 6:9–?? Parable of sower–??
Rom 14:4 1 Cor 10:12 Gal 6:1 1 Tim 3:6, 7 Jas 5:12 2 Pet 3:17 Rev 2:5
Rom 8:29–30
―Fall away‖
Result of ―falling‖
Spiritual death
Discipline–Heb 12:6–8 Lose reward–1 Cor 3:10–15 Lose usability–1 Cor 9:27
Impossible– Rom 8:29–30
The context of 5:1–6:20 is an appeal for true believers to diligently grow spiritually rather than display spiritual laziness. In this context it is more likely that the author of Hebrews is warning against a refusal of a believer to trust Christ‘s high priestly ministry than for one to reject the gospel.
186
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Scot McKnight includes an excellent list of words and phrases from the entire book of Hebrews that are parallel to ―falling away.‖90 He lists several in Hebrews 10, including ―deliberately sinning‖ (10:26), ―enemies of God‖ (10:27), ―reject‖ (10:28), ―trample the Son of God‖ (10:29), and ―regarded the blood of the covenant as common‖ (10:29). He concludes that these words and phrases have to mean apostasy.91 Therefore, ―fall away‖ in Hebrews 6:6 also means apostasy. However, he fails to mention that the judgment in Hebrews 10:26–30 falls upon ―his people‖ (10:30). Therefore, all of the words and phrases used in 10:26–30 must refer to true believers. According to McKnight‘s logic, Hebrews 6:6 must also be possible for true believers. Hebrews 3:16–19 illustrates this ―falling away‖ with the experience of the Israelites at Kadesh (Numbers 13–14).92 The Israelites refused to trust God to help them claim the Promised Land. As a result everyone twenty or older at the time was not allowed to enter the Promised Land, but instead, their judgment was to die in the wilderness. They made a conscious choice not to trust God to help them McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 37–38. This is an invalid conclusion. True believers can intentionally sin (Acts 5:1–11; Heb 10:25; Jas 5:11), be considered the enemies of God (Matt 16:23; Jas 4:4), reject or despise the truth about how they should live (1 Tim 5:12), figuratively trample the Son of God and regard the blood of Christ as common by failing to take advantage of the benefits of Christ‘s blood for the believer. 92 Mathewson says, ―I would propose that, like the other warnings in Hebrews, a specific OT example can also be detected in the warning of 6:4–6, and that this constitutes one of the keys to interpreting this warning. More specifically, behind 6:4–6 lies a reference to the wilderness generation and the Kadesh-barnea incident (cf. Numbers 13–14; Psalm 95) which featured prominently in the warning in 3:7–4:13‖ (―Hebrews 6 in Light of the Old Testament,‖ 211). The negative OT examples of faithless living alluded to in the warnings are nicely contrasted by the positive examples of faithful living in Hebrews 11. 90 91
A Warning for True Believers
187
conquer the land. They were not removed from the covenant. In fact, the very next day they repented and God forgave them (Num 14:20). Still, because of their refusal to trust God, they were not allowed to enter the Promised Land (even when they attempted to do so the next day). The situation in Hebrews 6:6 is very similar. Believers are faced with impending persecution. They have a choice. They can trust God (through the high priestly ministry of Christ) for help, or they can refuse to trust God for help. Gleason concludes, ―Like the Exodus generation, the initial readers of Hebrews were at their Kadesh. They were faced with a decision. If they chose not to trust God (through the high priestly ministry of Christ), severe judgment would fall on them.‖93 It was not a choice of whether or not to reject the gospel. ―Fall away‖ in Hebrew 6:6, then, is a decisive refusal to trust Christ‘s high priestly ministry which gave the believer access to God and enabled him to grow spiritually. If, in fact, he was returning to a Mosaic worship system, he was saying that Christ‘s high priestly ministry (including sacrifice) was not sufficient for daily living. Animal sacrifice also had to be offered to maintain fellowship with God. Crucify Christ. The phrase ―they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh‖ (ἀναςταυροῦντασ ἑαυτοῖσ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ) does not necessarily mean that they were rejecting the gospel. It simply means that they were saying that Christ‘s sacrifice was insufficient to meet their needs for daily living. Therefore, another sacrifice was necessary for them to maintain fellowship with God. They were denying Christ‘s high priestly ministry on their behalf that guaranteed them access to the heavenly holy of holies. Open shame. The phrase ―put him to open shame‖ (καὶ παραδειγματίζοντασ) does not necessarily mean that they 93
Gleason, ―The Old Testament Background,‖ 83.
188
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
verbally ridiculed Christ in public. Neither does it mean that they publicly rejected the gospel of Christ. They were asserting that Christ‘s high priestly ministry was insufficient to meet their needs for daily living. Therefore, they were saying to the world that Christ‘s cross work was defective. Instead of proclaiming the sufficiency of Christ, they were criticizing his ministry publicly. Therefore, they were shaming Him rather than glorifying Him. David deSilva suggests that the concept of shame in this verse is best understood within the context of the patron-client relationship that was part of the fabric of first century life.94 In the patron-client relationship, the patron would bestow gifts upon his client.95 Those described in Hebrews 6:4–5 are clients of God, their patron, who have been granted abundant grace gifts.96 In response to those gifts, the client would speak well of the patron and show loyal obedience to his patron. For a client to speak poorly of his patron or of his patron‘s gifts was the ultimate expression of ingratitude and insult.97 It would have brought shame on one‘s patron. Consequently, this would
deSilva, ―Hebrews 6:4–8,‖ 48–51. For a description of the patron-client relationship, see Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 67; James S. Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 72–83; David Arthur deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 111–144; David A. deSilva, s.v. ―Patronage,‖ in Dictionary of New Testament Background (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 766–771. 96 deSilva says, ―The subjects of 6:4–5 are clearly described in terms of the reception of benefits. They have been graced by God in this variety of ways, being granted great privileges and promises, as well as proofs of their patron‘s good will toward them‖ (―Hebrews 6:4–8,‖ 47). 97 Ibid., 49. 94 95
A Warning for True Believers
189
have been met with severe punishment from the patron. deSilva applies the patron-client concept to Hebrews 6:4–6. The people who reject their obligation to show honour, loyalty, and obedience to their patron when the cost of such witness and loyalty becomes too high are thus charged in Hebrews with bringing public shame on the patron, making a mockery of his beneficial death as they cut themselves off from the Son of God. Because the author has spent considerable space developing the honour and authority of the Son in Hebrews 1:1–14; 2:5–9 (and continues to do so throughout the letter), offering an affront to this Son is a dangerous course of action. The Son occupies the most exalted position in the Jewish and Christian cosmos; he awaits the subjection of all his enemies and promises to return as judge. Those who ‗crucify the Son of God‘ will not merely lose a reward, but will become subjects of divine vengeance.98 While deSilva seems to be accurate in understanding this passage in light of the patron-client relationship, he misinterprets two aspects of these verses. He misinterprets both the nature of falling away and the nature of the ensuing judgment.99 Nature of Judgment There are two basic views of the nature of the judgment mentioned in Hebrews 6:6–8. Some suggest that the judgment is that of eternal damnation.100 McKnight collates all the information concerning judgment from the entire Ibid. Both of the concepts are discussed elsewhere in this paper. 100 McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 33–36; Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 161–164. 98 99
190
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
books of Hebrews and concludes the following: ―In light of the final sense of several of these expressions (cf. especially the harsh realities of 10:30–31, 39) and the use of imagery in Hebrews that elsewhere is used predominantly of eternal damnation, it becomes quite clear that the author has in mind an eternal sense of destruction.‖101 The second possible interpretation of the judgment in Hebrews 6:6–8 is that it entails loss of God‘s blessing and the onset of cursing (up to and including physical death).102 Gleason summarizes, ―In light of the Old Testament blessing-curse motif, the judgment in view in Hebrews 6:7– 8 is best understood as the forfeiture of blessing and the experience of temporal discipline rather than eternal destruction.‖103 There are four basic arguments given in favor of eternal damnation as the judgment in 6:6–8. First, the terms used for the judgment, especially in 10:26–31,104 taken together give a clear indication that eternal damnation is in view. McKnight concludes, Nonetheless, when the exegete ties together ―no escape‖ (2:2; 12:25), God‘s anger (3:10, 17), falling short of the rest (3:11, 18–19; 4:1, 6, 11), a condition where no sacrifice remains for someone (10:26), a fearful expectation of judgment (10:27), fire (10:27; 12:29), death without mercy (10:28), and God‘s judgment (10:30–31), one is forced to conclude that the author is presenting eternal damnation as a potential consequence for those to McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 36. Gleason, ―The Old Testament Background,‖ 86–90; Oberholtzer, ―The Thorn-Infested Ground,‖ 323–326. 103 Gleason, ―The Old Testament,‖ 86–87. 104 McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 34. McKnight says, ―The language of 10:26–31 is particularly clear and needs to be the decisive evidence if other images and expressions remain ambiguous.‖ 101 102
A Warning for True Believers
191
whom he gives his warnings about sin and his exhortations to persevere.105 McKnight‘s interpretation may be possible. However, he fails to include a significant phrase when he lists the judgment of God in 10:30–31. The phrase that is omitted is the phrase ―his people‖ (10:30). The ―clearest‖ passage in defining this judgment calls the judgment a judgment of God‘s people. So, contrary to what McKnight argues, the clearest passage in Hebrews says that the judgment is for true believers. Therefore, it cannot be eternal damnation.106 Second, the fact that the person is not able to be brought back to repentance (avδύναηον γa.ρ . . . πa,λιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μεηa,νοιαν) indicates that the issue is a rejection of the gospel, not a believer‘s rejection of fellowship.107 Compton concludes, ―the author of Hebrews is saying that it is impossible to restore those who heard and understood the gospel but who reject it. This irreversible act has as its only prospect the judgment of God.‖108 McKnight claims, ―One is pressed to agree that the Ibid. This conclusion is based on the presupposition that no true believer can lose his salvation. 107 There is a good deal of discussion regarding the extent of this impossibility to repent. Both Gleason (―The Old Testament Background,‖ 84) and Oberholtzer (―The Thorn-Infested Ground,‖ 323) argue that it is impossible for man but not for God, since God can do anything. Compton, on the other hand, argues that it is impossible for both God and man since the person has hardened his heart so severely (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 159–160). While this is an interesting discussion, it does not greatly affect the understanding of the judgment in Hebrews. If it is impossible for God, it is only because He has limited Himself in some way. God has chosen to respond to the sin of the unrepentant believer as well as the unbeliever. In a sense, it is impossible for God to ignore the sin of either party. 108 Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 161. The problem with this conclusion is that many hear and understand 105 106
192
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
author is not dealing here with the impossibility of reclaiming a recalcitrant sinner (who will nevertheless be saved in the end) but with eternal damnation because that person has apostatized from a former commitment to God‘s salvation in Christ.‖109 McKnight mistakenly concludes that if the text is not referring to bringing a sinner back into fellowship with God, it must be referring to eternal judgment. A third possibility exists. Since the blessing/cursing motif is in the immediate context (6:7–8), it is likely that the author of Hebrews is simply saying that it is impossible to avoid losing God‘s blessing and experiencing God‘s curse of temporal discipline (even if they repent and restore fellowship with God). This is exactly the same thing that happens to the Israelites at Kadesh (Num 14). They refused to trust God to conquer the Promised Land. God removed his blessing and cursed the Israelites. The next day they repented of their lack of trust. God forgave them, but it was impossible to escape God‘s curse. All those over twenty died in the wilderness instead of entering the Promised Land (even though God forgave them).110 Hebrews 6:6, literally, is saying that it is impossible to renew someone to a former state by means of repentance.111 and reject the gospel (some several times) and then later place their faith in Christ for salvation. What implications does this view have for one‘s evangelistic efforts? 109 McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 34. 110 Another interesting example is Esau not being allowed to ―repent‖ his decision to sell his birthright (Hebrews 12:16–17). 111 Εivς is probably used to identify means just as it is in Acts 7:53 (the law was delivered by means of the direction of angels; see Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek [Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994], 94). Thus, the person cannot be delivered to a former state (i.e., ―wipe the slate clean‖) by means of repentance. In other words, a believer cannot escape the consequences of his sinful action by simply repenting.
A Warning for True Believers
193
The person who fails to trust Christ‘s high priestly ministry for daily living cannot escape God‘s chastisement by repenting (even though God forgives him of his lack of trust). This interpretation provides a strong motive for the believer to move on to maturity in his Christian life—if he does not, he will have no way of escaping God‘s chastisement. A third argument used to support eternal damnation as the judgment in Hebrews is the combination of the curse with fire in 6:8. McKnight says, ―The image of being cursed by God, with its close association with fire, can only adequately be explained as an allusion to Gehenna or hell, an allusion to God‘s punishment and retributive justice.‖112 When the people of God in the Old Testament experienced the curses that were part of the Mosaic covenant, they were not removed from God‘s people. The purpose of the curse was to bring Israel back into fellowship with God. If this concept of a curse is applied to Hebrews 6:8, it argues in favor of God‘s New Testament people being disciplined in order to bring them back into fellowship with God. It certainly does not argue for an eternal damnation of those removed from God‘s New Testament people. McKnight counters, ―If willful disobedience and apostasy in the Mosaic era brought discipline and prohibited entrance into the Land (a type of the eternal McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 35. See also, Grudem, ―Perseverance of the Saints,‖ 154–156. Compton concludes, ―The description of this judgment in 10:27 as a raging fire that will consume the enemies of God hardly sounds like God‘s judging the saved‖ (―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 163). Compton fails to note that 10:30 says that this is a judgment of ―His people.‖ Therefore, even if it does not sound like a judgment of ―the saved,‖ it is the best interpretation. Also, there is fire connected to the judgment of believers in 1 Cor 3:13. Both Hebrews 6 and 1 Cor 3 are in the context of the believers building their Christian lives on the correct foundation. 112
194
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
rest), then surely willful disobedience and apostasy in the new era will bring eternal exclusion from the eternal rest.‖113 In other words, the judgment in the New Testament is greater in kind than the judgment in the Old Testament. Gleason agrees that there is a heightening of some kind in the judgment of the New Testament. However, he reasons that it is greater in degree, not in kind. He says, It seems better to explain the increasing intensity of coming judgment in terms of degree in light of the severe devastation and physical suffering foreseen by the author as coming on the inhabitants of Judea and Jerusalem. Most of those in the Exodus generation died a natural death in the wilderness, their punishment being their forfeiture of blessings in the Promised Land.114 Therefore, just because there is a heightening of the judgment does not necessarily mean that the blessing/cursing motif is drastically altered. If the curse in Hebrews removes one from God‘s people (as McKnight suggests), then it is drastically different than the Old Testament curse. A fourth argument used to support eternal damnation as the judgment in Hebrews is the word ―rejected‖ in 6:8 (ἀδόκιμοσ). Since the word ―rejected‖ is used for the unsaved and its antonym ―approved‖ is used for the saved, ―rejected‖ in 6:8 must refer to the unsaved.115 It is undeniable that the word ―rejected‖ refers most often to unbelievers in Scripture; however, it is also used at least once of a believer. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:27, says that he must strive to live a self-controlled Christian life so that he does not become a ―castaway‖ (avδo,κιμος—―rejected‖). Compton 113 114 115
McKnight, ―The Warning Passages of Hebrews,‖ 35–36. Gleason, ―The Old Testament Background,‖ 90. Compton, ―Persevering and Falling Away,‖ 162.
A Warning for True Believers
195
rejects the idea that this word means ―disapproved‖ by saying, ―It is questionable whether it has this sense in 1 Corinthians 9:27 or elsewhere in the NT.‖ 116 What is undeniable, however, is that Paul understands this term (―rejected‖) as a very real possibility for him if he does not live a disciplined life. A disciplined, growing life is also the theme of Hebrews 6. Therefore, it seems likely that ―rejected‖ in this passage could also be a real possibility for a believer. In conclusion, the judgment in Hebrews 6 is not eternal damnation. It is the loss of God‘s blessing and the onset of God‘s curse. God‘s curse is temporal discipline of the believer, which may even include physical death. Conclusion Hebrews 6:4–8 will always be a difficult paragraph to interpret. A proper interpretation must explain the three key elements in this passage of Scripture. This article has attempted to provide the best possible explanations for these key issues. First, those described in 6:4–5 are truly regenerate people. The natural reading of the descriptions of these people argues for this interpretation. 5:1–6:20 is an extended exhortation to believers to mature in their faith. This fact lends support to the notion that true believers are described in 6:4–5. If 6:4–8 is referring to unbelievers, it makes little sense as an exhortation for believers to mature. Second, the ―falling away‖ mentioned in 6:6 is not a total rejection of the gospel of Christ. The term itself is not a technical term for apostasy. This ―falling away‖ is presented as a real possibility for true believers. It is parallel to Israel‘s failure to trust God at Kadesh when they were considering conquering the Promised Land. The combination of all this evidence argues for the notion that 116
Ibid.
196
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
―falling away‖ in 6:6 is a decisive refusal by a Christian to trust God for daily living (i.e., not living by faith). Third, the judgment for the one who ―falls away‖ is not eternal damnation, but rather the loss of God‘s temporal blessing upon the believer and the onset of cursing (which may include physical death). The direct connection of the judgment in 6:4–8 with the blessing/cursing motif in the Old Testament argues that the judgment in 6:4–8 is not an eternal damnation. Just as curses in the OT did not remove one from God‘s people, cursing upon a true believer does not remove him from God‘s fold. Also, 10:30 states that the judgment in the Book of Hebrews is on ―God‘s people.‖ This author suggests the following paraphrase for Hebrews 6:4–8: For it is impossible for true believers who have been once enlightened, and have accepted the heavenly gift, and have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and have experienced the good word of the gospel and the power of the coming kingdom; and then they fail to live their daily life by faith in Christ, to return by means of repentance to a place where they can escape God‘s curse (temporal chastisement and eternal loss of reward), because they have openly claimed that Christ‘s sacrifice was insufficient to maintain fellowship with God and they have publicly embarrassed and dishonored Christ, their patron. Let me illustrate the impossibility of escaping God‘s curse by means of an allusion to the OT blessing/cursing motif. The earth which drinks in the rain (accepts the gospel) and produces good fruit (lives by faith) for the one who tends the crops receives blessing from God. However, the land that drinks the rain (accepts the gospel) and does not produce good fruit (does not live by faith) receives the curse of God.
MBTJ 1:2
197-222
Filled with or Full of the Spirit: Acts and Ephesians Larry R. Oats1 In the Book of Acts, various disciples of Christ were ―filled with the Spirit,‖ some apparently more than once. In Ephesians 5:18 Paul commanded the believers to be ―filled with the Spirit.‖ There is, however, no commandment in Acts to be filled, and there are no examples of anyone actually being ―filled with the Spirit‖ in the Epistles. Because of Paul‘s command and the results that happened when the early believers were filled with the Spirit in the book of Acts, some believers today seek some kind of miraculous work of the Spirit to demonstrate their obedience to the Word. This article will examine the concept and language of being ―filled with the Spirit‖ in Luke and Acts (the phrase is not used in Matthew, Mark or John) and compare that with Paul‘s commandment in Ephesians 5:18, in order to demonstrate that these two fillings are not the same. This article will also examine the empowering ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament to lay a foundation for this New Testament study. Background There were numerous ministries of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. A common reference in the Old Testament, one which relates to this article, is the
1 Dr. Larry Oats is the Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.
198
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
phraseology of the Holy Spirit coming upon a person.2 It will be seen that these passages speak of the Holy Spirit empowering or enabling someone for special ministry. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, it will be demonstrated that the leaders of God‘s people were enabled to function by the empowering ministry of the Holy Spirit. The judges, Saul, David, the prophets, the apostles and the elders of the church at Ephesus are all examples.3 The first references to the Spirit coming upon someone are Numbers 11:17, 25, and 26. The Spirit was taken from upon Moses and put upon others. This should not be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit can somehow be divided or separated. In this passage, the Lord enlarged the ministry of Moses by placing his Spirit upon the elders who would assist him (24–30). The sign of the Spirit‘s coming was prophecy, as at other times (for instance, 1 Sam 10:6–13; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:4; 1 Cor 12:10). Numbers 11:29 goes further by indicating that Moses desired that the Spirit would come upon all the Israelites (although that did not happen). In Numbers 24:2 the Spirit of God came upon Balaam. The text states that Balaam ―lifted up his eyes and saw.‖ This is referring, both here and elsewhere, to an individual ―seeing or observing perceptively.‖ The combination of this perceptive vision with the Holy Spirit coming upon him demonstrated that Balaam was ―endowed with divine insight as he observed the Israelites below him in the wilderness of Moab.‖4 In Judges 3:10, the Holy Spirit came upon Othniel, a little known judge of Israel who brought peace to the nation for forty years. This is a good example of the Spirit‘s The preposition routinely used is l[;. D. A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1994), Num 11:16–35. 4 R. Dennis Cole, Numbers, The New American Commentary 3B (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 416. 2 3
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
199
ministry of empowering and authenticating ―individuals who are unqualified for or indisposed to service for him. In the present instance the empowering presence of the Spirit of God transforms this minor Israelite officer from Debir into the ruler (šôpēṭ) of Israel and the conqueror of a worldclass enemy.‖5 In Judges 6:34 the Spirit of God came upon Gideon. Gideon seems to have done all he could to avoid the leadership to which God was calling him, but his people rallied around his leadership nevertheless. Why are Gideon‘s clansmen, tribesmen, and countrymen so ready to respond to him? Are they impressed with his leadership ability or his courage? Do they recognize him as the ―valiant warrior,‖ whom the messenger of Yahweh had addressed in v. 12? Not if one may judge from his expressed perception of his standing within his own family and his tribe (v. 15) when God calls him to military leadership or from the trepidation with which he destroyed the Baal cult site in the preceding account (v. 31). From the succeeding narrative of the dew and the fleece (vv. 36–40) it seems that nothing has changed internally or personally. Gideon remains hesitant.6 That the people would rally around Gideon was undoubtedly because of their recognition of the empowering of the Spirit on his life. Verse 34 may give an indication of the reason, for the text indicated that the Spirit of Yahweh ―clothed‖ Gideon. The Holy Spirit came upon Jephthah (Jud 11:29). The Lord had rejected the prayer of Israel for deliverance from the Ammonites, because he knew their hearts.
Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, The New American Commentary 6 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 155. 6 Block, Judges, Ruth, 271–72. 5
200
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Nevertheless, he took pity on the nation and raised up a judge, Jephthah, to deliver them. Jephthah, rejected by his family because he was the son of a prostitute, was sought to lead Israel against the Ammonites. Judges 10 and 11 reveal his political and scheming nature. Yahweh took pity on Israel, but Jephthah was more interested in elevating his own status. In spite of his selfish motives and lack of spirituality, God still sent his Spirit upon him and Jephthah experienced the kind of empowerment that 7 preceding judges had experienced. Similarly, the Spirit of God came upon Samson (Jud 14:6, 14:19, and 15:14). His lack of spiritual maturity is clearly demonstrated in the narrative, but in his grace, Yahweh sent the Spirit to come upon Samson. ―As we have noted earlier . . . , if anything positive happens to Israel in the Book of Judges, the credit must go to God.‖8 This coming upon various men continued through the Old Testament. In 1 Sam 10:6, 10:10, 11:6, and 19:23, the Spirit of God came upon Saul. In 1 Sam 19:20–21 the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul. In 1 Samuel 19 Saul was attempting to capture David, but the Holy Spirit, coming upon both Saul and his messengers, caused them to prophecy for a lengthy period of time, ruining Saul‘s purpose and humiliating him at the same time. In 1 Chron 12:18 the Spirit of God came upon Amasai. In 2 Chron 15:1 the Spirit of God came upon Azariah. In 2 Chron 20:14 and 20 the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah. In Ezekiel 11:5 the Spirit of God came upon Ezekiel. Space constrains a fuller discussion of these incidents, but they are similar to what has already been presented. An important reference concerning this ministry of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is 1 Sam 16:13. The Spirit of God departed from Saul and came upon David, apparently at the same time. David viewed this ministry of 7 8
Carson, Judges, 11:12–28. Block, Judges, Ruth, 272.
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
201
the Holy Spirit, sometimes referred to as the ―theocratic anointing,‖ as necessary to rule the nation effectively and righteously.9 It was for this reason that he prayed that God would not remove his Spirit from him after his sin with Bathsheba (Ps 51:11). This confirms the intimation from the preceding passages that the Spirit coming upon a person was a temporary ministry. He could come upon someone, but he could also depart from them. There are prophesies concerning a future descent of the Spirit upon the Messiah and his followers. Isaiah 42:1 and 61:1 declare that the Spirit of God will come upon the Messiah. Ezekiel 39:29 states that the Spirit of God will come upon the nation of Israel eschatologically. Joel 2:28– 29 prophesy that the Spirit of God will come upon the Jews‘ sons and daughters, the young men and old, and even upon the slaves. In every Old Testament instance, the Holy Spirit was (or will be) empowering an individual, or in a few cases a group, for a specific ministry or activity. There is no indication of a universal or permanent empowering of all believers in the Old Testament; instead the indication is that this is a temporary situation for a select few. There are only a few references in the Old Testament that use the language of filling, fullness, or being full of the S/spirit. Exodus 28:3 speaks of God filling individuals with the spirit of wisdom. Whether this is the Holy Spirit or simply ―a wise spirit‖ (a special measure of wisdom) is difficult to ascertain. Most commentaries take this to mean a wise spirit.10 A similar statement is found concerning There is no room at this point for a discussion of whether David, or indeed any of the Old Testament saints, understood the Holy Spirit to be a separate person of the Godhead or to be an extension, in power or presence, of the one true God, Yahweh, and thus the spiritual presence and power of God. 10 See Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 2006), 601; John I. Durham, Exodus Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1987), 381; 9
202
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Joshua when he is said to be full of the spirit of wisdom (Deut. 34:9). In Exodus 31:3 and 35:31, the text clearly declares that God filled Bezalel with the Spirit of God for the purpose of leading the workers who would build the Tabernacle.11 This ―filling‖ was focused in the areas of wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and workmanship for the purpose of designing artistic works in gold, silver, bronze, jewels, wood, and finally a general statement of ―all manner‖ of workmanship. The references to the Holy Spirit filling, empowering, or coming upon someone in the Old Testament are few and narrative in character. There are some clear conclusions which may be drawn, however. First, this was a sovereign act of God. No one prayed for, requested, sought, or asked in any way for this filling or empowering. Second, the personal character of the recipient was not a defining norm. Third, this was a special activity, reserved for a very few select individuals. Fourth, it was designed to provide the necessary ability for a specific ministry. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament In the New Testament, there are significant changes to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Believers are given far more information concerning the Spirit and his ministry. The varied ministries of the Holy Spirit encompass a broader body of individuals. Some ministries, such as the indwelling presence of the Spirit involve all believers. The filling or empowering ministry is at least available for, if not used by, all believers.
Waldemar Janzen, Exodus Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA: Herald), 353; Carl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, nd), 1: 525. 11 The word for ―fill‖ or ―full‖ in all these passages is alm.
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
203
The Promise Jesus told the disciples that they were to wait in Jerusalem until he sent the Promise of the Father upon them (Luke 24:49). The promise is clearly the Holy Spirit. The timing of the coming of the Promise was said to be future, but not too far in the future, for the disciples were to wait in Jerusalem until it came. This Promise is repeated by Luke in Acts 1:4–5. The statement is phrased differently in Acts, for Luke is not quoting Jesus directly, but rather speaking about the Promise. In this passage, the Promise of the Father is linked directly to the Spirit. Jesus had previously promised that the Holy Spirit would come after he departed (see John 7:37–39 and 16:7). In John 20:22, Jesus breathed on the disciples and commanded them to receive the Spirit. Calvin argued that this was a precursor to Pentecost, a sprinkling of the Holy Spirit, while Pentecost was an outpouring.12 An early dispensational view was that John 20:22 was referring to a temporary filling of the Spirit given to the disciples to provide for their spiritual needs prior to Pentecost.13 Another interpretation is that this was the power for the new life, while Pentecost was the power for ministry.14 Another view argues that there were two comings of the Holy Spirit; John 20:22 was the fulfillment of the promises in John 17:17–19, and Pentecost was the fulfillment of the Paraclete promises. However, all of these create a problem. Jesus had promised that the Spirit would come after Jesus ascended to the Father. The actual empowerment came in Acts 2. Therefore, it may be best to take John 20:22 as a John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2. 205. Robert Gromacki, The Holy Spirit (Nashville: Word, 1999), 141–42. 14 B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1908), 2: 350–51. 12 13
204
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
symbolic fulfillment or prospective fulfillment of the soon-tobe-given gift of the Spirit, which would actually take place later at Pentecost.15 In his sermon on the day of Pentecost, Peter referred to the Spirit coming in two distinct, but related ways. In Acts 2:17, Peter referred to the events of Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28ff. A discussion of whether the prophecy in Joel was completely or partially fulfilled is beyond the scope of this paper. In the context of this article, however, it is sufficient to note that in the Old Testament the Father promised to send the Holy Spirit to believers in the last day. Peter declared that ―this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.‖ Later in the Sermon, however, Peter further developed his theology of the Spirit. He declared to the multitude what Jesus had told the disciples earlier would happen—that Jesus received the Holy Spirit from the Father in order to pour out the Spirit on the believers (Acts 2:32–33). Peter linked the promised coming of the Spirit with the ascension of Christ. In these verses, Peter drew a distinction between the apostles who had seen the risen Christ (―we all are witnesses‖) and the multitude that had not. The activities on the day of Pentecost were proof of the promise that the Holy Spirit had been sent (―what you now both see and hear‖). Thus, Peter linked Jesus‘ ascension and place at the right hand of God (compare Acts 5:31) with the coming of the Spirit. It was from his position at the right hand of the Father that Jesus fulfilled the promise that the Father would send the Holy Spirit.16 Paul referred to the Holy Spirit 15 Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 574. 16 Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary 17 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 100–01. Elsewhere Peter indicated the similar idea that Jesus appeared only to the disciples ―who were appointed beforehand by God‖ (Acts 10:41).
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
205
as the promise of the Father in Gal 3:14 and Eph 1:13. In Galatians Paul, defending his position against the Judaizers, argued that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles so that they could receive the promised Spirit just as the Jews did. In Ephesians Paul declared that believers are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. It may be argued, then, that the Holy Spirit‘s ministry in the New Testament would be a combination of what he did in the Old Testament, on a broader scale, with a new ministry unknown in the Old Testament. The ―Upon‖ Ministry The New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit coming upon people in language that is essentially identical to that of the Old Testament. Matthew 12:18 is a quotation from Isaiah 42:1, indicating that God would put his Spirit upon the Messiah. Jesus quoted this, indicating that he was the fulfillment of the prophecy. This pouring out of the Spirit upon the Messiah was done ―without measure‖ (Matt 3:16 and John 3:34). ―The Spirit is given in some measure to all who serve God, but clearly here it is envisaged that the servant will have a special endowment.‖17 This indicates that the Spirit‘s relationship to the Messiah was similar to, but in some way different from, that of human believers. The reference to ―measure‖ indicates that there is a quantitative, but not necessarily a qualitative, difference. Luke 4:18 refers to Jesus in the synagogue reading from Isaiah 61:12 and indicating that he was the fulfillment of this Old Testament prophecy. Like Matthew 12:18, Jesus indicated that the Holy Spirit would be upon the Messiah, empowering him for his ministry.
17 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 310.
206
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
In Luke 2:25 the Holy Spirit was upon Simeon. Simeon had already been informed that he would live to see the coming of the Messiah. The Holy Spirit brought him to the temple at just the right time to see the child Jesus and particularly equipped him to identify the child as the Messiah.18 These references in the Gospel of Luke indicate that the Holy Spirit continued to come upon men and women in a manner similar to that of the Old Testament; this comingupon ministry empowered an individual for a specific task at a specific time. In Acts 1:8 Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. This statement was in response to the disciples‘ question concerning when the kingdom would be coming, and it put the disciples‘ question in proper perspective. The restoration of the kingdom was a far future event, one which the disciples were not to worry about. Instead, they were to focus on the current needs, which included worldwide evangelization and church planting. Therefore, Jesus promised the disciples two necessary elements: power and witness. John Polhill points out that in this context the future tense has an imperatival sense: ―you will [must] receive power‖ and ―you will be my witnesses.‖19 The power the disciples would receive was divine power, δύναμις, which is the same word used to refer to Jesus‘ miracles. This power would come from the Spirit, for the disciples had to wait at Jerusalem until the Spirit came. In this context, the link between the Spirit coming upon someone and the Spirit empowering them for ministry is clear.
18 See I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 118. 19 John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary 26 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 86.
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
207
Acts 2:17-18 has already been noted, but it is the next occurrence of the Spirit coming upon someone. Peter quoted Joel 2:28–29, which states that the Spirit of God would come upon numerous people. Joel prophesied of this; Peter experienced it on the day of Pentecost. In Acts 8:16 the Holy Spirit came upon the believers in Samaria. The language is a little different, for Luke indicates that the Spirit had not yet fallen upon them, but when the disciples came from Jerusalem, they then received the Holy Spirit. Some are concerned that the arrival of the Spirit is separated chronologically from the new disciples‘ believing and baptism, but Luke is not speaking of the indwelling presence of the Spirit. He clearly speaks of the Spirit having not yet come ―upon‖ them. Luke is not using this terminology any differently than in his previous references. The Spirit came ―upon‖ the Samaritans and empowered them for ministry. Here the ministry seems to be primarily confirming that the Samaritans were to be included in the proclamation and reception of the gospel in equal standing as the Jews. ―Many interpreters point to the significance of the experience being one of an outward demonstration of the Spirit in some visible sign that Simon could ‗see‘ (v. 18). Therefore this does not rule out the Spirit‘s having worked inwardly in them at the point of their initial conviction and commitment.‖20 Others have noted that the imagery in this passage is that of a community empowering, like the day of Pentecost, rather than an individualized ministry. This reinforces the idea of an empowering for ministry, rather than an individual salvific work.21 Acts 10:44 is very similar. Peter had taken the good news of the coming of the Messiah to Cornelius. While Peter was preaching, the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his Polhill, 218. Richard Belward Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles (London: Methuen, 1925), 117. 20 21
208
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
household. Cornelius was already a believer in the Jewish religion and in the true God; with Peter‘s coming, he learned the truth of the coming of the Messiah.22 The language and context is similar to Acts 2. When Peter defended his actions upon his return to Jerusalem, he used this similarity as his defense. In Acts 11:15 Peter argued that the Holy Spirit came upon the household of Cornelius, with the accompanying miraculous sign of speaking in tongues (Acts 10:46) as it did upon the disciples ―at the beginning,‖ a clear reference to Pentecost. In his defense, Peter included the words of Jesus when he compared John‘s baptism in water with Jesus‘ baptism in the Holy Spirit. A final reference to the Spirit coming ―upon‖ someone is found in Acts 19:6. Twelve men in Ephesus had, at some point, become followers of John the Baptist. The point of the narrative seems to be that they were only that— followers of John and ill-informed followers at that. Part of John‘s message had been the future baptism by Jesus in the Holy Spirit, but these men were not even aware that there was a Holy Spirit. Paul, therefore, introduced these men to the Messiah. The timeline of the passage is instructive and should not be ignored. Verse 4 summarizes Paul‘s message to them. Following this they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Paul laid his hands on them, and at that point the Holy Spirit came ―upon‖ them and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. Had this event not occurred, the previous three narratives would have concluded a neat package—the Spirit had come upon Jews in Jerusalem, half-Jews in Samaria, There is not enough time to comment thoroughly on the dispensational transition hinted at here. He and his household were already devout God-fearers (Acts 10:1–2), when an angel directed him to Peter so that he might hear the news of the Messiah. This writer suggests that, like the Eleven before him, he was already a believer, but needed to learn the greater revelation which was only now being made available to him. 22
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
209
and Gentiles in Caesarea. These three would seem to have symbolized the completion of the command to be witnesses to the entire world.23 The addition of this fourth similar pouring out of the Spirit seems to be best explained by Kistemaker. A possible answer is to consider the extension of the church in Jerusalem, Samaria, and Caesarea as a first phase of mission work among Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles. A second phase relates to the work of evangelizing persons who have an inadequate knowledge of Christ but are subsequently instructed in the truth of the gospel. If we consider the first phase to be extensive, then the second is intensive.24 The preposition for this ―upon‖ ministry is evpi,. When used with the genitive, it commonly has a physical meaning of being upon its object. It also carries the meaning of ―over‖ in the sense of ―power, authority, control.‖25 While the physical concept fits the descent of the Spirit ―as a dove‖ at the baptism of Jesus, the concept of the Spirit taking ―over,‖ controlling the individual or assuming authority over him may better fit its more common usages in the New Testament. Filled with the Spirit Πίμπλημι. Luke, in both his Gospel and in Acts, refers to a variety of individuals being ―filled with the Spirit.‖ One of the Greek words for filled in the phrase ―filled with the 23 See Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, New Testament Commentary 17 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 681. 24 Kistemaker, 681. 25 BAGD, evpi,.
210
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Spirit‖ is πi,μπλημι pimplemi. In the New Testament it is used in the following passages in connection with the Holy Spirit. The angel who spoke to Zacharias and foretold the birth of his child declared that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother‘s womb (Luke 1:15). The external evidence for this is found a few verses later in Luke 1:41. When Mary walked into the home of Zacharias and Elizabeth, the baby John, still in his mother‘s womb, leaped for joy at the presence of the Messiah (see also verse 44). Kistemaker notes concerning the infant John: ―That at this stage of its development it already has all the nerves it will ever have and is normally able to react to stimuli is well known. In view of verse 15 it should be added that in some mysterious manner, incapable of further analysis, the Holy Spirit was already actively present in the soul of Elizabeth‘s child.‖26 There is no natural way for John to have known that Jesus was present in the same room with him, except through the miraculous work of the Spirit. This event fits with the previous discussions of the ―upon‖ ministry of the Holy Spirit; it was a special empowering for a specific task at a given time. The following instances of individuals being ―filled with the Spirit‖ seem to fit that same model. In Luke 1:41 Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. The result of this was her hymn of praise directed toward Mary and the unborn Messiah. Similarly, in Luke 1:67 Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied concerning the future ministry of his son, John, and his role in preparing the way for the Messiah. In the book of Acts, the ―filling of the Spirit‖ is interpreted in problematic ways. Referring to Acts 2:4, John Polhill declares:
26 Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, New Testament Commentary 11 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 97.
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
211
Verse 4 gives the result of the Spirit‘s coming on those gathered in the upper room. They were ―filled with the Holy Spirit,‖ and this led them to ―speak in other tongues.‖ From this point on in Acts, the gift of the Spirit became a normative concomitant of becoming a Christian believer (2:38). The expression of this differs; in 9:17 Saul is said to have been ―filled‖ with the Spirit, as here. Sometimes this experience is described as a ―baptism‖ in the Spirit (1:5; 11:16). In other instances the word ―poured out‖ is used (2:17ff; 10:45) or ―came upon‖ (8:16; 10:44; 11:15) or simply ―receive‖ (2:38; 10:47). All these instances refer to new converts and point to the Spirit‘s coming in various ways, not always signified by tongues, as a permanent gift to every believer. This should be distinguished from other references to ―filling,‖ where the Spirit comes upon one who is already a believer in a time of special inspiration and testimony to the faith (cf. 4:8, 31; 7:55; 13:9).27 The result of an interpretation like Polhill‘s (and he is not alone in this) is that the gift of the Spirit, the baptism of the Spirit, the filling of the Spirit, and the receiving of the Spirit all become the same event, with the same theological and practical implications. Yet even Polhill acknowledges that this broad approach does not always work, since there are times when these events happen to believers and other times when they happen to unbelievers. There is a better way to understand this ―filling of the Spirit.‖ In Acts 2:4 the disciples in the upper room were filled with the Holy Spirit, which resulted in preaching on the day of Pentecost. The text indicates that it was only the disciples, not those who would eventually come to salvation that day, who were filled with the Spirit.
27 John B. Polhill, Acts, The New American Commentary 26 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 98.
212
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
In Acts 4:8 Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit. The result of this filling of the Spirit was that Peter preached about Jesus and his miracles and proclaimed that there is no other name under heaven which can save. Some would argue that the filling of the Spirit is a permanent state for the believer and that the reference here is only a reminder of what had already happened to Peter at Pentecost.28 Others argue that the filling is a temporary event.29 This writer agrees with the latter position. The ―filling of the Spirit‖ and the coming ―upon‖ ministry seem to have the same purpose and result – to empower individuals for specific acts or times of ministry. Acts 4:31 declares that the church as a whole was filled with the Holy Spirit. It is important to note the prayer in verse 29. This was not a prayer for a special ―filling,‖ but one for boldness. The connection between filling and speaking in Acts 4:8 and 31 shows ―that the filling is not an end in itself, but the condition for speaking with boldness in the missionary situation.‖30 In Acts 9:17 and 13:9, Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit, with the result being the preaching of the Word (Acts 9:20). In each case of these fillings of the Spirit, the individual was the passive recipient. ―The Spirit-filling (with pimplemi) in Acts is never commanded, nor is it related particularly to sanctification. Rather, it is a special imbueing [sic] of the Spirit for a particular task (similar to the Spirit‘s ministry in the OT).‖31
Polhill, Acts, 98. Kistemaker, Acts, 152. 30 Colin Brown, ―Fulness,‖ in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Regency, 1975), 1:739. 31 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 94. 28 29
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
213
πληρo,w. Luke used another phrase that is very similar and is sometimes translated identically to what has already been presented; this phrase is ―full of the Holy Spirit‖ (sometimes translated ―filled with the Spirit‖). In these cases, Luke used the Greek verb πληρo,w pleroo and its related adjective πλh,ρης pleres. In this article, to maintain the distinction between the Greek words, the author uses ―filled‖ to refer to πi,μπλημι pimplemi and ―full‖ or ―to make full‖ to refer to πληρo,w pleroo and πλh,ρης pleres. In Luke 4:1 Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit as he entered into the temptation. He returned in the power of the Spirit (v. 14). This is the only occurrence of this idea in Luke‘s Gospel. In Acts 6:3 the apostles instructed the church to select seven men who were ―full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom,‖ which the church as a body did (see also 6:5 and 7:55). These were to be men who had a ―good reputation.‖ ―[F]or the task of distributing food and money a person must have a reputation that is above reproach and a recommendation that his peers and superiors gladly provide (compare 10:22; 16:2; 22:12).‖32 The end result was nothing miraculous or even extraordinary; the church selected seven men of good character who set about to solve a problem. The first deacon mentioned is Stephen, who is said to have been full of faith and the Holy Spirit. In Acts 7:55, as he was being martyred, Luke portrayed him as a man ―full of the Holy Spirit.‖ Acts 11:24 describes Barnabas as a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith. This is the same terminology that was used of Stephen, except that the order of the words is reversed. In Acts 13:52 the believers in Pisidia were full of joy and the Holy Spirit. Paul and Barnabas had led these individuals to Christ and had begun to establish them in the faith. Because of persecution incited by the Jews, they 32
Kistemaker, Acts, 222.
214
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
were forced to leave. ―We would expect these fledgling believers to be disheartened by the departure of Paul and Barnabas. Instead they are filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit. God fills the vacuum created by the sudden exit of the teachers by giving the disciples the gift of joy, which is a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22). The presence of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of the believers is in itself indescribable joy.‖33 Luke also used this word group to refer to individuals being full of wisdom, full of faith, and full of grace and power. Luke also used the words to refer to people who had certain vices as he spoke of individuals who were full of wrath (Acts 19:28 and Luke 4:28), full of fury (Luke 6:11) and full of jealousy (Acts 5:17 and 13:45). In Acts 5:3, Peter asked Ananias why he allowed Satan to make full his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit. Acts 13:9 has an interesting combination of πίμπλημι pimplemi and πλήρης pleres. Paul, filled with the Spirit, confronted Elymas the sorcerer and accused him of being full of deceit and fraud. The conclusion that can be drawn from these references is that when Luke used πίμπλημι pimplemi, he was referring to a sovereign act of God, in which the Holy Spirit empowered individuals for a particular ministry at a specific time. When he used πληρo,w pleroo or πλήρης pleres, he was referring to the character of the individual. The former is temporary and outside the control of the individual. The latter is a reference to a person‘s character. ―As contrasted with ‗filled with the Holy Spirit‘ in [Acts] 1:41, 67 the phrase ‗full of the Holy Spirit‘ refers to a permanent condition, not a momentary experience.‖34 To be full of the Spirit indicates that a person is spiritual, spiritually minded, spiritually mature, and characterized by spiritual qualities such as joy, wisdom, faith and grace. Kistemaker, Acts, 498. J. Reiling and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 186. 33 34
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
215
Paul‘s Commandment Ephesians 5:18–19 is the key passage to the understanding of Paul‘s teaching on the fullness of the Spirit. Paul used the present passive of πληρo,w pleroo. It is usually translated, ―be filled,‖ but to maintain the English distinction used in this article, it will be translated routinely as ―be full,‖ or to better reflect the passive, ―be made full.‖ Grammatically, this passage is a transition. It is the final imperative in a series with a not . . . but contrast. Verse 18 states, ―Do not be drunk . . . but be full.‖ Verse 17 states, ―Do not be unwise . . . but understand.‖ Verse 15 says, ―Not as fools, but as wise.‖ The final ―not . . . but‖ is ―be not drunk with wine . . . but be full of the Spirit.‖ Paul‘s command then leads into a chain of participles, all of which are subordinate to the imperative, ―be full by the Spirit‖ and are best understood as results of the fullness. Those who are full of the Spirit will sing praises to God, have their hearts filled with these praises, give thanks for all things in their lives, and live lives of spiritual submission to one another. The reason why Paul used being ―drunk with wine‖ as the contrast with being ―filled with the Spirit‖ is debated.35 It may be a command directed against misconduct in the assembly, similar to the drunkenness taking place in Corinth.36 Others suggest that Paul has in view the pagan mystery cult celebrations, particularly that of Dionysius.37 Still others view Paul as saying that drunkenness (part of the old lifestyle) is no solution to the cares and worries of ―Wine‖ and ―Spirit‖ are contrasted in Luke 1:15 and Acts 2:13–18, but nowhere else in the New Testament. 36 P. W. Gosnell, ―Ephesians 5:18–20 and Mealtime Propriety,‖ Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 363–71. 37 C. Rogers, ―The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 249–57. 35
216
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
this life and that only the Spirit can enable a person to live in these days.38 More likely, however, Paul is drawing a contrast between folly and wisdom; drunkenness is folly, and being full of the Spirit represents the wise way to live. The contrast is not between the wine and the Spirit, but between the state of being drunk which leads to dissipation and the state of being full of the Spirit which leads to joy and obedience. Both involve bringing oneself under the influence of a controlling agency.39 Paul added to the mix of terms πλh,ρωμα pleroma, the noun form of πληρo,w pleroo. He used the word four times in Ephesians, twice in Colossians, and six times in the rest of his epistles. Six of these occurrences have no significance to this article.40 The remaining usages of the term (all in Ephesians and Colossians) are full of meaning. In Eph 1:23 the church is described as ―the fullness of the one making full all in all.‖ There is not agreement to who or what is the ―fullness.‖ There are some who argue that the precedent should be Christ, not the body or the church.41 This is argued because it has fewer theological problems, since the implication would be that Christ is the fullness of the church. It also makes Eph 1:23 parallel to William Hendriksen, Exposition of Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 239. 39 It is noteworthy that the apostles at Pentecost, filled with the Spirit, were accused of being drunk. 40 Rom 11:12 speaks of the fullness of the Jews at the end of the church age. Rom 11:25 speaks of the fullness of the Gentiles in this age, as does Gal 4:4 and Eph 1:10. Rom 13:10 says that love is the fullness of the law. When Paul would finally arrive in Rome, he would come in the fullness of the gospel. 1 Cor 11:26 refers to all the fullness of the earth as the Lord‘s. 41 See A. E. M. Hitchcock, ―Ephesians 1:23,‖ Expository Times 22 (1910–11): 91; G. B. Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 49; C. F. D. Moule, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 164–69. 38
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
217
Col 1:19 and 2:9, where the fullness clearly relates to Christ. This interpretation, however, stretches the grammar. ―Fullness‖ follows immediately after ―body‖ in the Greek. ―Christ‖ comes twelve verses earlier and would require a quite awkward grammatical construction. Additionally, the emphasis of the context (especially 1:22b) is on the church, not Christ. Verse 23 is best taken as enlarging Paul‘s definition of the church. Therefore, it is more reasonable to conclude that Paul is arguing that the church is the fullness of him who makes full all in all. This will also make Eph 3:19 parallel to this verse. How then can the church be the ―fullness‖ of Christ? The ―fullness‖ can be taken in two ways. One interpretation sees the church as that which is filled up or made complete by Christ.42 The other interpretation sees the church to be that which fills or completes Christ.43 The latter seems to be problematic. This interpretation makes Christ somehow defective without the church. Elsewhere Christ is seen as the one completing or finishing the church, not vice versa. Thus, it is best to interpret this fullness as Christ, who fills all things in all places and who, therefore, makes the church full of all that is godly and necessary for its existence and ministry. Eph 3:19 enlarges upon Paul‘s discussion of fullness. The immediate context is Paul‘s prayer that introduces the latter half of Ephesians. Paul makes a request that the believers ―be full toward (or with reference to) all the fullness of God.‖ The content of the fullness (the Greek uses 42 See J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (London: Macmillan, 1879), 261 and H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, tr. J. R. de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 390. 43 See T. K. Abbott, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897), 27; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (London: SCM, 1952), 43–44, 255–59; P. D. Overfield, ―Pleroma: A Study in Content and Context,‖ New Testament Studies 25 (1979): 393.
218
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
the preposition eivj eis with the accusative to indicate content) is God‘s fullness, probably a reference to his moral attributes, which believers should emulate. In Eph 1:23 the church is described, theologically, as already the fullness of Christ. In this passage, as Paul turns his attention toward the practical application in chapters 4–6 of the theology which he developed in chapter 1–3, he prays that the believers would actually attain to that which they are already in principle.44 In Eph 4:10 Christ is said to be the agent of the filling. He will ―make full all things.‖ While it is undoubtedly true that Christ ―fills the universe through the exercise of his lordship over everything,‖45 in the context Paul is not concerned about the universe; his focus is on the church and its ministry. Paul adds the specifics of that fullness: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors and teachers. Paul expands this in verse 13 to indicate that the goal toward which believers are moving is mature manhood, defined by the fullness of Christ. Paul next speaks of the fullness of the church and/or believer in Ephesians 5:18–19 where he commanded the believers: ―Be full of the Holy Spirit.‖ He used the present passive imperative, which may be translated ―be continually being full of the Holy Spirit.‖ This is something that should be routine in the Christian life; the Spirit‘s fullness is to be a continuing state. The case of ―Spirit‖ is dative. Normally a verb of filling takes a genitive (which is called the genitive of content). In Acts, whenever Luke speaks of the ―filling of the Spirit,‖ the case of ―Spirit‖ is genitive. There are no clear examples in biblical Greek in which evn en plus the dative indicates 44 Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1990), 214. 45 Peter Thomas O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 297.
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
219
content. It would, therefore, be ―grammatically suspect‖46 for Eph 5:18 to mean to be filled with the content of the Spirit. The concept that ―the Spirit is the content with which one is filled is most likely incorrect.‖47 No other Pauline text focuses on the Spirit as the content of the filling. Wallace argues, effectively, that ―be not drunk by means of wine‖ is a direct parallel to ―be filled by means of the Holy Spirit‖ (both verbs are passive imperatives) and the use of evn en with the dative suggests not the content, but the means. He concludes that ―the idea intended is that believers are to filled by means of the [Holy] Spirit. If so, there seems to be an unnamed agent.‖48 The church already shares the fullness of Christ (1:23), yet Paul‘s petition concerning the Ephesians is that they might be full of the fullness of God (3:19). The prayer in 3:19 and the use of the imperative in 5:18 implies that this is not an automatic status. God began to answer Paul‘s request in the present, but will ultimately complete the fullness in the final day. The petition of 3:19 is addressed to the Father, so he is the one who is doing the actual filling. Yet it is also Christ who fills all things (4:10). The reasonable conclusion is that both the Father and the Son, by means of the Spirit (in his various ministries of indwelling, illuminating, sealing, etc.), make full God‘s people with God‘s character. All believers are urged to be imitators of God. The fullness theme is concluded with believers being made full by Christ by means of the indwelling presence of the Spirit in their lives with the content being the fullness of God.49 Put simply, Christ, through the Holy Spirit, makes believers godly. Believers are to be receptive to the Spirit‘s transforming power; they cannot fill themselves. That which causes believers to obey 46 47 48 49
Wallace, Wallace, Wallace, Wallace,
Greek Greek Greek Greek
Grammar, Grammar, Grammar, Grammar,
375. 170–71. 375. 375.
220
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Paul‘s command is what precedes this passage—wisdom. The result of that obedience is what follows—worship and thanksgiving. Many commentators see Colossians 3:16 as a parallel passage.50 The latter portion of Col 3:16 is very similar to the results of Eph 5:19–20. The command to be full of the Spirit in Ephesians is replaced with the command to have the Word of Christ dwell richly in all wisdom. ―Of Christ‖ is an objective genitive, indicating that Paul is referring to the message that centers on Christ.51 Believers, then, must be subject to the Spirit‘s control, ―which is tantamount to letting Christ‘s word rule in our lives (Col 3:16), so that we may walk wisely (Eph 5:15).‖52 ―Be full by means of the Spirit‖ and ―let the Word of Christ dwell in you‖ are parallel and mean essentially the same thing. Conclusion The indwelling of the Spirit takes place at salvation. There is no command anywhere in the New Testament to be indwelled. Rom 8:9 declares that if a person is not indwelled by the Spirit, he is not saved. The indwelling of the Spirit is not an option for the believer. On the other hand, there are commands to be ―made full‖ by the Spirit and to ―walk‖ by the Spirit. If a person were only full of wisdom, he would experience only an impersonal influence on his life. This fullness is not an Peter T. O‘Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco: Word, 1982), 208–209 and Ephesians, 392; Howard W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 704; Lincoln, Ephesians, 339ff. See especially J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 246ff. 51 O‘Brien, Colossians, 206. 52 Peter T. O‘Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 394. 50
Full of or Filled with the Spirit
221
automatic bestowal at conversion, but an injunction for every believer to follow. There are significant differences between being filled with the Spirit and being made full by the Spirit. Different terms are used. The grammatical structures are not the same. Miraculous events are never associated with the fullness. The filling is routinely an aorist passive with the genitive case. The people who were filled had no control over the filling; it was a sovereign work of God. The fullness commanded by Paul in Ephesians, on the other hand, is an imperative passive, meaning that believers are commanded to allow it to happen; they can control their willingness to be filled. The purpose of the fullness is oriented toward a person‘s character and is not task-oriented.53 The contrast is between the filling of the Spirit in Acts, which was a momentary empowering for a specific ministry, and the fullness of the Spirit in Ephesians, the long-term characteristic of a person‘s life.54 This writer would argue that the filling of the Spirit is still a legitimate ministry of the Holy Spirit, minus the miraculous signs and wonders, which are no longer for this age. However, a person can do nothing to claim that filling, and thus no one should pray for it or seek it. Likewise, he should not seek the miraculous signs and wonders that sometimes accompanied the filling of the Spirit in the New Testament. Instead, the believer should seek the fullness of the Spirit. Paul commanded believers in Ephesians 5:18 to be full of the fullness of God by means of the ministry of the Holy Spirit; believers are to allow themselves to be governed by the fullness of Christ in their lives. Wisdom brings about this obedience; the result is joyful singing, giving of thanks, Max Anders, Galatians-Colossians, Holman New Testament Commentary 8 (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 180. 54 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 782. 53
222
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
and a purity of relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and even masters and slaves.55
55
Anders, Galatians-Colossians, 180.
MBTJ 1/2: 223-252
Tracing the Thread of Trinitarian Thought from Ignatius to Origen Mark Hanson1
INTRODUCTION One of the most contested theological issues throughout church history is the doctrine of the Trinity. For many people the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD is a natural starting point for the orthodox position of the church regarding the Trinity. Prior to Nicaea the concept of the ―Trinity‖ was not clearly defined or articulated, so the doctrine, as most understand it today, does appear at first glance to derive its founding from the events of that historic council which formed the common formulation in use today. But what of the earlier church fathers? Origen is often referenced as a key figure in the development of the formulation leading up to Nicaea,2 but this focus on a single individual neglects the development of others who had a hand in shaping doctrinal articulations for the following Mr. Hanson is the Assistant Librarian and Bible faculty member at Maranatha Baptist Bible College. 2 While Lewis Ayres in Nicaea and its Legacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) traces ―theological trajectories‖ (41–84) from Nicaea forward, he does little work tracing the trajectories leading up to Nicaea. A prime example is when he states that ―the theology of Origen of Alexandria (c.185–c.251) lies beneath the surface of many early fourth-century theologies‖ (20, see also pages 1–40). While true to some extent, this generalizes and overlooks that there were other theologians prior to Origen who had already begun to address issues around the concept of the Godhead, even if less directly. 1
224
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
decades. This then raises the important point that merely referencing one council, Nicaea, as ―the‖ starting point or one man, Origen, as being ―the‖ foundation ―of many early fourth-century theologies,‖3 is incomplete. The purpose of this article is to explore how Origen‘s predecessors viewed the relationship among the Godhead, and to examine if there was a developing theology prior to Origen. This study endeavors to determine if earlier church fathers developed their theologies along the same trajectory traced through Origen and then to the formula later articulated at Nicaea. As theological engagement passes down from one generation to the next, it would be logical to assume that the teaching found in Nicaea would be a synthesis from centuries of increasingly significant reflection. This will be evaluated by comparing Origen‘s work and writings against five major contributors to early church theology: Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria. IGNATIUS [A.D. 30–107]4 Ignatius is one of the earliest church fathers whose writings have been preserved. His correspondence has a genuinely pastoral, New Testament epistle-type flavor since the bulk of his extant writings are specifically addressed to churches in a manner similar to Paul. Quotations from Paul‘s epistles in the New Testament comprise more of his writing than his own thoughts on almost any given subject.5 He viewed the Father as ―the one true God.‖6 In Aryes, Nicaea and its Legacy, 20. For uniformity, all dates and quotes are taken from the material found in the Anti-Nicene Fathers translated by A. Cleveland Coxe, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004). 5 This is interesting when compared with the other church fathers who quote Scripture less as the interval between their writings and the New Testament grows larger. 3 4
Trinitarian Thought
225
the same vein, he also stated that whoever ―declares that there is but one God, only so as to take away the divinity of Christ, is a devil.‖7 In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius briefly references a view of the Godhead, perhaps even within the time of the writing of the New Testament. ―Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit. . . . Be ye subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit.‖8 While not directly expounding on the specific relationship between the three persons of the Godhead, it is obvious that Ignatius intended to communicate that their unique roles were distinct and equally important in the lives of believers. With such a pastoral flavor, Ignatius did not seem to delineate a specific doctrinal position. Rather, he focused on integrating God into life on the practical level, so that no aspect of the Godhead was ignored or neglected. Obviously, the church understood early on that there were inseparable elements which bound the Father, Son, and Spirit together as unity, or as a unit, while still distinguishing them as individuals. Yet, Ignatius notes that Christ submitted Himself to the Father willingly, just as Christians should to those who have been given authority over them. By examining all the epistles Ignatius wrote to the different churches, small pieces of his broader theology 6 7 8
Ignatius Epistle to the Antiochans 4.1. Ibid., 5.1. Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians 8.1.
226
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
emerge. Ignatius clearly notes the importance of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but he also details that Christ was completely God: ―To the church . . . elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our God.‖9 ―For our God, Jesus Christ was, according to appointment of God conceived in the womb of Mary . . . God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life.‖10 Christ‘s deity is seen early on in the church and is a key element around which many heresies arise due to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. In his greeting to the Smyrnæans, he references the Godhead in this manner: ―Ignatius, to the Church of God the Father, and of the beloved Jesus Christ . . . through the immaculate Spirit and Word of God.‖11 Ignatius‘ opening greeting to God’s church, of Christ, through the Spirit shows his understanding of the working of the Godhead that places God as the element of authority, Christ as the relational element, and the Spirit as the empowering element. But Ignatius uses a bit of analogy when he details a Christian‘s relationship to the three persons of the Godhead when he spoke of stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended.12 Here the three persons are intricately woven together, and yet distinctly recognized, as Ignatius notes that ―there are not then either three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one Paraclete Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 1.1. Ibid., 18.1. 11 Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnæans 1.1. 12 Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 9.1. 9
10
Trinitarian Thought
227
. . . into three possessed of equal honor.‖13 While this is not formed in the same organized manner found in later creeds, Ignatius clearly places an emphasis on the Father and the Son, and does not neglect the role of the Spirit. JUSTIN MARTYR [A.D. 110–165] The writings of Justin Martyr are apologetic in scope and often directly address problems which lie in a realm outside the church, namely, the Roman government. For this reason his theological conception of the relationship between the members of the Godhead is assumed rather than stated. There are several instances where he lays out his basic beliefs in defense of his faith. In his Dialogue with Trypho he states that: Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God . . . appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens . . . so the Father, when He chooses, as they say, causes his power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself. . . . I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided (Italics mine).14 Because he is addressing a Jewish audience, he highlights the conjoined divine nature of the Father and the Son. Justin Martyr is arguing for the fact that God‘s power 13 14
Ignatius Epistle to the Philippians 2.1. Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew 123.1.
228
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
is completely manifest in Christ, something possible only because God‘s essence is not divided, implying that Christ is of one essential nature with God. He illustrates this using fire as an example. When one puts a stick in the first fire and pulls it out with a flame to start a second fire, the two ―fires‖ can be seen to be distinct, yet, in substance, are not lesser or different fire.15 The only distinction is in the multiple locations which can be observed so that one may perceive two fires where there was once one. This interesting analogy also bears striking resemblance to the work of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2:3.16 While perhaps a bit of a stretch to say that Justin was alluding to this specific passage, his illustration does find a biblical precedent for the work of the Holy Spirit. The closest he comes to including all three persons in close contextual proximity is in a discussion about the Lord‘s supper where the overseer takes the ―bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks.‖17 Here he incorporates all three persons into one of the sacraments, but does not go into depth as to their relationships. In Justin‘s First Apology, he also brings to light the unity of God and Christ in a different manner when referencing the work of demons who ―attempt nothing else than to seduce men from God who made them, and from Christ His first-begotten . . . those who devote themselves to the contemplation of things divine, they secretly beat back.‖18
Ibid., 60.1. ―And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.‖ 17 Justin Martyr The First Apology 65.1. 18 Ibid., 58.1. 15 16
Trinitarian Thought
229
Being ―seduced‖ away from both God and Christ is an interesting implication Justin draws from the role demons play in the spiritual realm. He evidences that, from the enemies‘ perspective, the influences of God and Christ are of equal importance. Along a similar vein, Justin frequently connects God and Christ together in many of these passages, often where the conception of ―God‖ is treated in a more general sense. When God and Christ are placed in a parallel position regarding devotion and worship, it keeps the same tension found in the New Testament with which the Jews struggled.19 Justin later states this belief: ―the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.‖20 ―For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God.‖21 We worship the God of the Christians, whom we reckon to be the one from the beginning, the maker and fashioner of the whole creation, visible and invisible; and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . what I can say is insignificant in comparison with His boundless divinity . . . concerning Him of whom now I say that He is the Son of God.22 It is evident that Justin connected God and Christ together in some sort of unity as he indicates that worship was ascribed to both. This is further confirmed as he also recognizes Christ‘s divinity as limitless in nature as God Himself. Christ was obviously communicating on such a level that the religious leaders clearly perceived a claim of equality with God in John 5:18 and 10:30–33. 20 Justin Martyr The First Apology 63.1. 21 Justin Martyr The Second Apology 13.1. 22 Justin Martyr The Martyrdom of the Holy Martyrs 1.1. 19
230
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Justin details more specifically the role and position of Christ with respect to the Father, yet does not deny Christ‘s deity when he states: And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation ―God‖ is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained.23 One can find that several elements from the above quote are specifically addressed in the beginning of the Nicene Creed.24 Justin touches on the preexistence of the Son to God and also the role Christ played in creation. Both of these indicate threads of a pre-Nicene theology regarding the Godhead some two centuries before the first church sanctioned theological debates and treatises on the Trinity. IRENAEUS [A.D. 120–202] Irenaeus, a contemporary of Justin Martyr, is another key leader in early Trinitarian development. In Against Heresies he sets forth a theological construction of the Trinity that is very similar to the Trinitarian formula articulated two hundred years later at Nicaea, with the
Justin Martyr The Second Apology 6.1. ―One Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, begotten from the Father . . . through Whom all things came into being.‖ Cited in J.N.D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Rev. Ed., San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978), 232. 23 24
Trinitarian Thought
231
same order of precedence from the Father to the Son to the Spirit. The Church . . . believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth . . . and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in one Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets . . . the Church, having received this preaching and this faith . . . carefully preserves it. She also believes these points just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth.25 Here he clearly details that the ―Christian belief‖ of one God includes the Father and the Son and the Spirit.26 Irenaeus adds an interesting element regarding a preexistent theology when he notes this as the tradition of faith passed down through the church concerning the doctrine of God‘s nature. In light of the ―threeness‖ of persons passed down through the church, he continues to relate that it does not make sense that they ―should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe.‖27
Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.2. It is interesting to observe that many early church fathers generally use the same ordering sequence when noting the relationships between the persons of Godhead. 27 Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.3. It should be noted that Irenaeus is directly speaking against Gnostic philosophy and its false understanding in relation to the personhood of God. And while he denotes one God in a unified sense by detailing three specific roles, it should not lead one to think that he was necessarily proposing a Trinitarian concept as would be known 25 26
232
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Irenaeus is unique in the way in which he describes God Himself, since ―God . . . is He who, by His Word and Spirit, makes, and disposes, and governs all things, and commands all things into existence.‖28 This statement places both Christ and the Spirit directly in subordination to God the Father. Undoubtedly, this is a high view of God in contrast to a more pluralistic view of gods: For it must be that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His will; or again that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods . . . no one of them all therefore, is God. For there will be much wanting to every one of them, possessing only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such opinion will of necessity fall into impiety.29 Continuing on this theme of ―the Creator,‖ Irenaeus states that God is the ultimate cause of creation by using the illustration that when a tree is cut down, it is not the axe which receives the credit, but the man. However, he goes on to clarify that He Himself in Himself, after a fashion which we can neither describe nor conceive, predestinating all things, formed them as He pleased . . . while He formed all things that were made by His Word. . . . For this is a peculiarity of the pre-eminence of God, not to stand in need of other instruments for the creation of those things which are summoned into
today, but merely articulating what had been taught and passed down as the Christian tradition from the apostles. 28 Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.23.1. 29 Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.1.5.
Trinitarian Thought
233
existence. His Word is both suitable and sufficient for the formation of all things.30 Here he references the ―Word‖ which most likely refers to Christ, whom he later describes as ―the Son of God, the Only-begotten, who is also the Word of the Father.‖31 He expounds on this idea by saying: This is Christ, the Son of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word.32 Christ being called God here has significance when Irenaeus states that ―unless the Word of God dwell with, and the Spirit of the Father be in you . . . ye cannot inherit the kingdom of God.‖33 Between these two statements he views Christ as being in essence God, but also at the same time the Word of God. This seems to indicate that he views Christ in two different relational realms as He is on the same plane as God the Father, and yet still proceeds from the Father as does the Spirit. TERTULLIAN [A.D. 145–220] Tertullian, in refuting Praxeas, follows close after Irenaeus with a similarly condensed and succinctly written articulation of the Godhead:34
30 31 32 33 34
Irenaeus Against Heresies 2.2.4. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.17.4. Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.19.2. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.9.4. Compare with footnote 14.
234
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal We . . . believe that there is only one God . . . this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself . . . who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit . . . This rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel.35
Tertullian follows Irenaeus in keeping these statements very closely tied to the tradition of the church as it was the one passed down to them from the beginning. Christianity, only about a century old, was being attacked on all sides by the Roman government, the Jewish religious establishment, and by heretical teaching. As the heretical opposition arose, it split the church from within, so much so that Tertullian indicates there was some uneasiness in the view he put forth: the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world‘s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οivκονομi,α (stewardship). The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity.‖36 Tertullian holds this concept of a unity of the persons within the Godhead in spite of opposition, apparently viewing it as a key method of preserving the true faith. This is evident as he comments on martyrs of the faith who would ―testify that one and the same Holy Spirit is always 35 36
Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.1. Tertullian Against Praxeas 3.1.
Trinitarian Thought
235
operating even until now, and God the Father Omnipotent, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, whose is the glory and infinite power for ever and ever.‖37 In his treatise on baptism, referencing the tripartite baptismal formula, Tertullian brings to light his understanding of the combined work of the Father, Son, and Spirit in relation to salvation: the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains. For if ―in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand:‖ . . . how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope . . . wherever there are three (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three.38 While not specifically delineating individual roles, this commentary on one of the few Trinitarian-like formulations found in Scripture gives insight as to how the early church interpreted and applied the understanding within these passages. Tertullian also delves into broader theological elucidations when he articulates what may be one of the first cogent written understandings of the unity of the Godhead, while at the same time giving a proper understanding of individuality in the relationships within the persons of the Godhead: One cannot believe in the One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame person . . . by unity of substance . . . unity into a Trinity, Tertullian The Passion of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas 6.4. 38 Tertullian On Baptism 6.1. 37
236
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal placing in order the three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.39
He even titled this chapter ―The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity.‖ It is fascinating to see such a detailed articulation of a Trinitarian formula nearly a century and a half prior to its formal recognition within the broader church assembly at Nicaea. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [A.D. 153–193/217] Clement is the father closest to the time of Origen‘s writing. Because of this close proximity, there is a greater significance to the material in tracing the development of Trinitarian theology so as to give a fuller understanding in comparison to Origen. Looking at Clement‘s view of the Spirit, it is clear that he sees the Spirit as God‘s active presence in the world today. Clement continues the pattern of referencing the Spirit mostly in his role as the prompter of God‘s prophetic messages. But he does detail a few unique functions by giving an illustration concerning the Spirit‘s work through Christ as he defines ―the Spirit (as) being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.‖40 But the Spirit also works in the human realm as well, since Christ‘s ―instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit.‖41 In referencing Christ‘s role, Clement notes that ―the energy of the Lord has a reference to the Almighty; and the
39 40 41
Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.1. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 2.2. Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 2.1.
Trinitarian Thought
237
Son is, so to speak, the energy of the Father.‖42 This terminology is most often used in reference to the work of Christ proceeding from God as his spoken Word during the process of creation. Elsewhere he details the divine nature and role of Christ: ―For the image of God is His Word, the genuine Son of Mind, the Divine Word.‖43 ―This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man.‖44 ―Our instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father‘s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father‘s right hand, and with the form of God is God.‖45 ―The Saviour . . . the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God.‖46 ―Our Instructor is the holy God Jesus . . . the loving God Himself is our Instructor.‖47 With this summary he touches on Christ‘s perfection, humanity, service to God, his role as God‘s ―Word,‖ his role in creation, his likeness to God, his placement at God‘s right hand, and his essence as ―God.‖ Concerning God the Father, Clement notes that He is ―the great First Cause, the Maker of all things, and Creator of those very first principles, the unbeginning God.‖48 Elsewhere he places the highest place of prominence to God the Father by stating that ―God is one, and beyond the one
42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Clement Clement Clement Clement Clement Clement Clement
of of of of of of of
Alexandria Alexandria Alexandria Alexandria Alexandria Alexandria Alexandria
The Stromata 7.2. Exhortation to the Heathen Exhortation to the Heathen The Instructor 1.2. Exhortation to the Heathen The Instructor 1.7. Exhortation to the Heathen
10.1. 1.1. 10.1 5.1.
238
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
and above the Monad itself.‖49 Here he seems to have almost placed God outside of the concept of ―oneness,‖ as he notes that God is even ―above the Monad,‖ almost as if to say that whatever terms man might use to define God, God is still much more than a finite description could ever articulate. As for the unity of the three members of the Godhead, Clement adds some uniqueness when he affirms that Christians are ―protected as it is by the power of God the Father, and the blood of God the Son, and the dew of the Holy Spirit.‖50 His use of the term ―dew‖ could possibly allude to Christ‘s illustration of baptism by the Spirit in Acts 1:5, or it may just be a similar metaphor to symbolize the Spirit‘s complete covering. Clearly Clement sees the work of the Spirit originating from God and being unified into a whole along with Christ. His articulation of the unified oneness of the Godhead appears in condensed Triune statements in a few of his writings, incorporating the Father, Son, and Spirit into some formulaic constructions. ―Nor is the Father without the Son; for the Son is with the Father. And the son is the true teacher respecting the Father; and that we may believe in the Son, we must know the Father, with whom also is the Son.‖51 ―Son and Father, both in One, O Lord . . . the Alone Father and Son, Son and
Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 1.8. Clement appears to be using ―Monad‖ in a philosophical sense which would be some 1,500 years prior to the movement popularized by Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz during the turn of the seventeenth century. See Gottfried W. Leibniz and Andre Robinet, Discours de metaphysique et Monadologie (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1974). 50 Clement of Alexandria Who is the Rich Man that Shall Be Saved? 34. 51 Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 5.1. 49
Trinitarian Thought
239
Father, the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom all is all, for whom all is One.‖52 Clement affirms a connection between the three persons of the Godhead when he discusses the act of salvation: ―thou shalt be freed from destruction: the word of God will be thy pilot, and the Holy Spirit will bring thee to anchor in the haven of heaven. Then shalt thou see my God.‖53 This in effect implies that without the work of this dynamic relationship found within both Christ and the Spirit, one cannot see God. Even though Clement often tends to separate the Spirit from God and Christ, he does bring them altogether as one when he states that ―the universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere.‖54 This statement of the ―oneness‖ of the Godhead is evident in one of his theological foundations as he continues connecting the Godhead directly to the unity of the church: For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church.55 But nothing exists, the cause of whose existence is not supplied by God. Nothing, then, is
52 Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 3.12. While the Spirit seems like an addendum to the more emphasized combination of Father and Son, the fact still remains that all three are mentioned prior to the ―all in One‖ statement. 53 Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen 12. 54 Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 1.6. 55 Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 7.17.
240
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one—that is, God.56
Here Clement takes a step outside of purely theological philosophy and moves into the realm of practical application, making the unity of the Godhead the basis for the unity of the church. While he does not delve deeply into the matter, he does clearly understand and raises this ―oneness‖ as a key element to the life of the church body as a whole. ORIGEN [A.D. 185–230/254] There is no doubt that of those surveyed here, Origen by far had the most organized and voluminous insight into the relationship amongst the Godhead. He clearly details that the ―Christian belief‖ includes the Father, Son and Spirit, and even places them in that very same order of precedence. Origen's first three points in De Principiis move in a progressive and systematic fashion nearly identical to the modern articulation of Trinitarian doctrine: The particular points clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: — First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being. . . . Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came . . . became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was. . . . Thirdly, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son (Italics mine).57
56 57
Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 1.8. Origen De Principiis, Preface.4.
Trinitarian Thought
241
In detailing the individual persons, he notes that ―God Himself is the beginning of all things,‖58 and as ―the Father of all things, fills and holds together the world with the fullness of his power.‖59 This is the ―one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being.‖60 These statements establish Origen‘s foundation for how he understands the work of both Christ and the Holy Spirit. He always comes back to how they are related to God Himself. Through that relationship he describes each one‘s individual purpose. God is displayed as the ultimate primary force behind everything. Origen states: Certain that all things which exist in this world, or take place in it, are ordered by the providence of God . . . under the disposal of His providential government, yet others again unfold themselves so mysteriously and incomprehensibly, that the plan of Divine Providence with regard to them is completely concealed.61 In regards to the mystery of Christ, Origen states that ―the existence of the Son is derived from the Father but not in time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God Himself.‖62 Because "He is the beginning and the end, but . . . He is not the beginning, [since] the Word was in the beginning."63 His relationship with the Father is inherently tied to understanding his point of origin which either affirms or denies his deity. This is at the
58 59 60 61 62 63
Origen Origen Origen Origen Origen Origen
Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.17. De Principiis 2.1.3. De Principiis Preface.4. De Principiis 4.1.6. De Principiis 1.2.11. Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.34.
242
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
heart of any Trinitarian discussion. Origen expounds on this relationship in regard to the
further
bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, with respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty of His divinity . . . was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined within . . . His bodily person. . . . [I]t ought neither to be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is everywhere.64 Origen understands that Christ ―is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.‖65 His affirmations of Christ‘s deity here are clear and direct. While debates would later rage as to the definition of ―essence,‖ it is evident from early on that the church fathers understood Christ‘s ―oneness‖ with the Father to be a perfect reflected image of God Himself. Following the concept of the perfect image Origen also argues: The true God, then, is ―The God,‖ and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who being with God is at all times God.66 Origen sees Christ as the physical canvas upon which the divine can be seen, understood, and experienced. In attempting to grasp the work of the Spirit, Origen starts his discourse on the Spirit in this manner: ―It is time, 64 65 66
Origen De Principiis 4.1.30. Origen De Principiis 4.1.28. Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.2.
Trinitarian Thought
243
then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability regarding the Holy Spirit . . . if indeed any definition or description of Holy Spirit can be discovered?‖67 Christ appropriately receives primary billing as the main actor on the biblical stage; hence inquiry into the Holy Spirit often was a minor point of inquiry. Yet Origen does note the Spirit‘s place in regard to the Godhead as ―the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son.‖68 And within his broader study of Scripture, he also observes that ―it is the same God Himself, and the same Christ, so also is it the same Holy Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles.‖69 In dealing with the being of the Holy Spirit, Origen‘s understanding was that even although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if anyone should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.‖70 This statement clearly evidences his presuppositions regarding the concept of the Trinity, but also clearly shows how that understanding intricately shapes his beliefs of each individual person of the Godhead. Beyond articulating the unique characteristics of the Father, Son, and Spirit, Origen spends time expounding on their interconnecting 67 68 69 70
Origen Origen Origen Origen
De De De De
Principiis Principiis Principiis Principiis
2.7.1. Preface.4. 2.7.1. 1.3.4.
244
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
relationships. Origen, writing more than a century prior to the Council of Nicaea, explains at length his belief in the oneness of the Father and the Son by stating that ―you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father.‖71 He expounds further by stating, ―What belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the Son.‖72 This then forms the basis for not just mere doctrine but actual practice. Origen continues by noting: We worship one God, the Father and the Son . . . the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences [sic], are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, ―who is the brightness of God‘s glory, and the express image of His person,‖ has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself.73 He also wrestles with the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, noting that at times the Spirit appears to take priority, citing Isaiah 48:16 as an example. In contrast, however, he notes that the "Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ. And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's own Son."74 The context here is difficult to discern whether he is implying the Spirit was created by God through Christ, but, as was noted previously, he states in relation to the creation of the Spirit, ―if this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the Unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the
71 72 73 74
Origen Origen Origen Origen
De Principiis 1.2.10. De Principiis 1.1.8. Against Celsus 8.12. Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6.
Trinitarian Thought
245
unchangeable Father and his Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.‖75 In regard to the relationship between all three persons of the Godhead, Origen urges his audience to ―consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,‖76 and goes on to quote 1 Cor 12:4–6 as proof of this fact. In a general sense, he summarizes the whole Godhead by citing David who in ―intimating that the mystery of the entire Trinity was in the creation of all things, says: ‗By the Word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth.‘‖77 In this creator/creature distinction, Origen truly reflects a proper respect for the ―divine otherness‖ of the Trinity by stating that the ―Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence.‖78 In addition he declares that ―it is impossible . . . that any other nature than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can live without a body, the necessity of logical reasoning compels us to understand that rational natures were indeed created at the beginning . . . for an incorporeal life will rightly be considered a prerogative of the Trinity alone.79 For the nature of Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit . . . is incorruptible and eternal, it is altogether consistent and necessary that every substance which partakes of that eternal nature should last for ever, and be incorruptible and eternal . . . also a diversity is to be noted in the participation of Father, Son, and 75 76 77 78 79
Origen Origen Origen Origen Origen
De Principiis, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1.3. Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6. De Principiis 4.30. Here he quotes Psalms 33:6. De Principiis 4.28. De Principiis 2.2.2.
246
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Holy Spirit, varying with the degree of zeal or capacity of mind.80
It is then this degree of diversity that Origen will spend some time explaining. Origen uses the inherent ―goodness‖ of God to explain the interconnectedness of the Godhead since ―the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived.‖81 God‘s inherent goodness seems to be a key element which Origen draws upon as being the motivation behind the unique roles and ministries of each member of the Godhead. He draws this in regards to the human race, since ―firstly, they derive their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit.‖82 He may take this understanding from Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:4–6. Understanding the Trinity appears to be one of Origen‘s foundational principles as he notes that after ―having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which we began the discussion.‖ This is directly related to living as a Christian as he connects this understanding to ―the working of the Father, which confers existence . . . by participation in Christ . . . and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit that any one is made purer and holier.‖83 Through this unified working of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in us, in its various stages of progress, shall we be at some future time 80 81 82 83
Origen Origen Origen Origen
De De De De
Principiis Principiis Principiis Principiis
4.36. 1.2.10. 1.3.8. 1.3.8.
Trinitarian Thought
247
perhaps, although with difficulty, to behold the holy and the blessed life . . . the more we perceive its blessedness, the more should be increased and intensified within us the longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly and freely receive and hold fast the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.84 SYNTHESIS Of the church fathers surveyed here, Origen is by far the most systematic when detailing the relationships within the Godhead. It is evident, however, that the origin of the Trinitarian concept was not primarily developed by a single person, but was rather developed over centuries of theological reflection which present a clear picture of three uniquely individual yet inseparable persons. From this survey it is evident that each of these church fathers had five elements that they would cover as it related to an understanding of the relationships within the Godhead by including a definition: 1) of God; 2) of Christ; 3) of the Spirit; 4) of the relationship between God and Christ; and 5) which would unify the Godhead into a Trinitarian-like formula. All of these men at some point within their writings reveal their understanding of God the Father. Most often it was connected in a simple way to the creative initiative associated with Genesis 1:1.85 Christ is often brought to the forefront once their initial discourse on God the Father had been introduced. Jesus then is most readily connected to God by means of his relationship as participant in the creative acts of God seen in Colossians 1:16, as He is the Word and Son of God.86 As for the Spirit,87 He resides in the Origen De Principiis 1.3.8. Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1, Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen 4. 86 Ignatius Epistle to the Magnesians 4. 84 85
and
Clement
of
248
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
peripheral and is rarely mentioned directly. He is normally referenced in passing with regard to his role as the vehicle through which God communicates prophetically.88 Most of the explanation given by the church fathers regarding the interconnectedness of these relationships primarily focus on describing the nuances of how God and Christ relate to one another. Rightfully so, this leads to a great emphasis of reflection being placed on Christ‘s divinity. As evidenced later at Nicea, this is the key issue at the heart of the doctrine of the Trinity. Interestingly, it seems that understanding the relationship between God and Christ was of greater importance than understanding the unified relationship which would also include the Spirit. Yet when the Spirit was included, there was also a simple formula,89 or they went into a more detailed explanation of the unified work of the Godhead as a whole.90 CONCLUSION It is apparent that the church fathers evidenced theological growth and development as forerunners to the eventual systemization of the doctrine of the Trinity. While this progression does not necessarily follow a systematically consistent pattern, it nevertheless shows that the subject of Most of these early church fathers‘ works were primarily focused on presenting and giving a defense of the Christian faith to a skeptical world. Keeping this historical background in mind helps one understand why God and Christ are emphasized, while the Spirit is only occasionally mentioned. 88 Justin Martyr The First Apology 33, and Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1. 89 Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1. 90 Tertullian Against Praxeas 1.2, and Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.5. For a side-by-side visual comparison of Trinitarian formulas between all six of the church fathers mentioned here, see the ―Development of Trinitarian Relationships‖ chart included in the Appendix. 87
Trinitarian Thought
249
the internal relationships amongst the Godhead was addressed with increasing intentionality. The fact that these men, among others, laid a foundation from which the council gathered at Nicaea could then be built upon is clearly evident. The forbearers‘ rich tradition of theological meditation in the Word is clearly evident, highlighting the fact that theology should be continually moving us toward a deeper understanding of the great mysteries of truths revealed therein. Regardless of Origen or Nicaea‘s prominence in this particular arena, it will always serve the church well to be reminded of our historical heritage through continual and consistent reflection.
250
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal APPENDIX
FATHER, SON & SPIRIT
FATHER & SON HOLY SPIRIT
CHRIST
GOD
Comparison Chart Theological Development of Trinitarian Relationships IGNATIUS
JUSTIN MARTYR
IRENAEUS
―The one Father was ‗the only true God‘‖1
―God, the Father and Lord of the universe‖6
―One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth‖11
―The Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God‖7
―One Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate‖12
―How could such a one be a mere man . . . God the Word, and the onlybegotten Son‖2 ―The Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign, and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge‖3 ―There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things‖4 ―The building of God the Father, drawn up by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope‖5
―The righteous and beloved by God, who spoke by the Divine Spirit . . . They are called prophets‖8 ―The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the firstbegotten Word of God, is even God‖9 ―Worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe . . . the Son of the true God . . . holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third‖10
―The Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God‖13 ―God Almighty, who made all things by His Word . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ‖14 The Church believes . . . in one God, the Father . . . and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God . . . and in the Holy Spirit‖15
Trinitarian Thought
GOD
―One true Lord, the God omnipotent and eternal‖16
CHRIST
―He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God‖17
―This Word . . . Christ . . . appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man‖22
HOLY SPIRIT
―the Holy Ghost . . . the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe‖18
―The Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word‖23
FATHER & SON
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA ―The great First Cause, the Maker of all things, and Creator . . . the unbeginning God‖21
―God has also a Son, His Word . . . being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God‖19
―For the image of God is His Word, the genuine Son of Mind, the Divine Word‖24
FATHER, SON & SPIRIT
TERTULLIAN
―The Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost . . . inasmuch as He is one God‖20
―The Alone Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son . . . with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One‖25
251 ORIGEN ―There is one God, who created and . . . when nothing existed, called all things into being‖26 ―That Jesus Christ . . . was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was‖27 ―The Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son‖28 ―the Word of God . . . who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father‖29 ―Three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit . . . nothing to be uncreated but the Father . . . all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order‖30
252
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
1
Ignatius Epistle to the Antiochians 4.
2
Justin Martyr The First Apology 61.
3
Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1.
4
Tertullian The Apology 34.
5
Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen 5.
6
Origen De Principiis Preface.4.
7
Ignatius Epistle to the Tarsians 4.
8
Justin Martyr The First Apology 62.
3
Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1.
10
Tertullian The Apology 21.
11
Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen 1.
12
Origen De Principiis Preface.4.
13
Ignatius Epistle to the Philadelphians 5.
14
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 7.
15
Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1.
16
Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.
17
Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 2.2.
18
Origen De Principiis Preface.4.
19
Ignatius Epistle to the Tarsians 4.
20
Justin Martyr The First Apology 63.
21
Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.21.1.
22
Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.
23
Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen 10.
24
Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.2.
25
Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 10.
26
Justin Martyr The First Apology 13.
27
Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.10.1.
28
Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.
29
Clement of Alexandria The Instructor 3.7.
30
Origen Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6.
MBTJ 1:2
253-285
Adoniram Judson Father of American Missions Brian Trainer1
Adoniram Judson is commonly called the ―Father of American Missions.‖ This title is proper. Judson was the first minister of the gospel to depart from American shores in order to dedicate himself to the proclamation of Jesus Christ to the heathen abroad. Several aspects of Judson‘s ministry earn him the position of ―Father‖ or originator. First, Judson was a vocational minister. In other words, his financial support was raised entirely from his gospel ministry. Second, he departed from the boundaries of America. David Brainard and others were home missionaries within the known territory of the United States, but God directed Judson to leave the country. Third, Judson‘s entire financial support was derived from local churches in the United States. By faith, churches chose to support a man who would represent them abroad. Fourth, Judson was the first American to accept this task of world evangelization. Though others went with him, Judson was the acknowledged leader and the one whose foreign ministry extended the longest time span. These four elements combined earn Judson the title as ―Father of American Missions.‖ As such, Judson‘s life and ministry is a pattern upon which other missionaries, from his contemporaries until the present, can look for instruction and encouragement. Brian Trainer is the Chairman of the Department of Bible and Church Ministries at Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Adjunct Faculty of Homiletics and Missions at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. 1
254
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal HIS CONVERSION AND CALL
Judson‘s life and ministry cannot be covered adequately in this short article. When surveying Judson‘s life and ministry, multiple joys, discouragements, and turning points are easily noted. One of these turning points occurred after Judson left America and prior to his arrival in Burma, which would be his home for thirty-eight years. He decided to reject pedobaptism and become a postconversion immersionist, a resolution that shook the ecclesiastical world of his day. This decision proved to be not only a personal turning point for Judson, but it consequently compelled American Baptists as a whole to join the efforts of world evangelization. Our purpose in this article is to briefly survey Judson‘s life prior to his foreign service, his decision to become an immersionist, and the eventual response to his decision. Judson’s Conversion Adoniram Judson was born on August 9, 1788, in Malden, Massachusetts. He was the eldest son of Adoniram Judson Sr, a Congregational minister. At an early age, Adoniram‘s parents recognized his intellectual prowess. In fact, by age three he could read an entire chapter of the Bible.2 By age ten, Judson had a reputation for his proficiency in both arithmetic and Greek.3 In 1804, at the young age of sixteen, he entered Providence College, subsequently called Brown University. Three years later, Judson graduated as the valedictorian.4 This was followed by a brief stint as a teacher in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where he authored ―Elements of English Grammar‖ and Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, D.D. His Life and Labours (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1883), 2. 3 Judson, Adoniram Judson, 5. 4 Judson, Adoniram Judson, 7. 2
Adoniram Judson
255
―The Young Lady‘s Arithmetic,‖ both secondary level textbooks.5 Judson‘s excellence in the realm of academics was not accompanied by a pursuit of his parents‘ God. To be sure, Judson was acquainted with the piety of his parents and had an intellectual knowledge of the Scriptures, but he personally rejected God. Influenced by a college friend, Jacob Eames, Adoniram espoused the theology of Deism and proclaimed himself a ―free thinker.‖6 His newfound belief led to open debate with his stern, Congregational father. Unable to reason with his father and longing for the world‘s pleasures, Judson traveled to New York City to seek a life of independence from his parents‘ spiritual pressure. The brief visit was discouraging as his company of friends turned to petty theft and crime to make ends meet. Judson had no place to go, but back home. On his journey home, he had occasion to stay at an inn. The events of this evening changed the course of his life, as his son Edward later recounts: The next night he stopped at a country inn. The landlord mentioned, as he lighted him to his room, that he had been obliged to place him next door to a young man who was exceedingly ill, probably in a dying state; but he hoped that it would occasion him no uneasiness. Judson assured him that, beyond pity for the poor sick man, he should have no feeling whatever, and that now, having heard of the circumstance, his pity would not of course be increased by the nearness of the object. But it was, nevertheless, a very restless night. Sounds came from the sick-chamber---sometimes the movements of Francis Wayland, A Memoir of the Life And Labours of the Rev. Adoniram Judson (Boston: Phillips, Sampson and Company, 1853), 13. 6 Wayland, 12. 5
256
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
the watchers, sometimes the groans of the sufferer; but it was not these which disturbed him. He thought of what the landlord had said---the stranger was probably in a dying state; and was he prepared? Alone, and the dead of night, he felt a blush of shame steal over him at the question, for it proved the shallowness of his philosophy. What would his late companions say to his weakness? The clear-minded, intellectual, witty E---, what would he say to such consummate boyishness? But still his thoughts would revert to the sick man. Was he a Christian, calm and strong in the hope of a glorious immortality? Or was he shuddering upon the brink of a dark, unknown future? Perhaps he was a ‗freethinker,‘ educated by Christian parents, and prayed over by a Christian mother. The landlord had described him as a young man; and in imagination he was forced to place himself upon the dying bed, though he strove with all his might against it. At last morning came, and the bright flood of light which it poured into his chamber dispelled all his ‗superstitious illusions.‘ As soon as he had risen, he went in search of the landlord, and inquired for his fellow-lodger. ‗He is dead,‘ was the reply. ‗Dead!‘ ‗Yes, he is gone, poor fellow! The doctor said he would probably not survive the night.‘ ‗Do you know who he was?‘ ‗O, yes; it was a young man from Providence College—a very fine fellow; his name was E—‘ Judson was completely stunned. After hours had passed, he knew not how, he attempted to pursue his journey. But one single thought occupied his mind, and the words, Dead! lost! lost! were continually ringing in his ears. He knew the religion of the Bible to be true; he felt its truth; and he was in despair. In this state of mind he resolved to abandon his scheme of travelling, and at once turned his horse‘s head toward Plymouth.7
7
Judson, Adoniram Judson, 12–13.
Adoniram Judson
257
Throughout the remainder of Adoniram Judson‘s life, he credited the events of this evening for altering the direction of his life. On October 12, 1808, Judson was accepted as a ―special student‖ at Andover Seminary—―special‖ in that he had not made a profession of faith. On December 2, 1808, that changed when Judson made a solemn dedication of himself to God. In September 1809, just one year shy of his conversion, Judson was giving serious contemplation to world missions. In February 1810, he resolved to be a missionary to the heathen abroad. The Call to Service The events that followed are landmarks for the American missions movement.8 Several men from Andover College—Samuel Mills, James Richards, Luther Rice, Samuel Nott, Gordon Hall, Samuel Newell, and Adoniram Judson—formed a missionary fraternity with the goal to represent Christ and the Congregational churches on the foreign mission field. These men prompted the general Association of Congregational Churches to form the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions on June 28, 1810.9 The first meeting of that board was held on September 5, 1810. Dr. Samuel Worcester was appointed corresponding secretary. The first action taken by the board was to determine whether there would be a relationship between the American mission board and that of the London Missionary Society. The London Missionary Society had already sent Mr. William Carey as its first missionary abroad, and it was 8 These events are given in a detailed analysis by Francis Wayland and Edward Judson in their respective biographies of Adoniram Judson. Due to the purpose of this particular article, the events will be mentioned only in the slightest detail. 9 Wayland, 32.
258
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
enlisting others to join Carey in India or to extend the mission endeavor to other nations. The American Board hoped to elicit cooperation and financial support from their brethren in England, and consequently selected Judson to travel to London to accomplish this task of communication. Judson‘s mission to London met with limited success. While the London Society was not willing to offer assistance to the American Board, it was willing to enlist four men— Judson, Newell, Nott, and Gordon—into the work of the London Society. This arrangement was not acceptable to the American Board, and on September 18, 1811, the Board voted to advise the four men in question ―not to place themselves at present under the direction of the London Missionary Society, but to wait the further intimations of Providence relative to our means of furnishing them with the requisite support in the proposed foreign mission.‖10 This appeal subsequently charted the direction for the American missions movement: American missionaries were to be supported by American churches. As a result, the American Board ordained Newell, Judson, Nott, Hall, and Rice for the gospel ministry as missionaries to Asia on Thursday, February 6, 1812. On February 19, 1812, Adoniram and Ann Judson and Samuel and Harriet Newell embarked from Plymouth in the brig Caravan bound for Calcutta. The Notts, Halls, and Luther Rice embarked at a later date from Philadelphia on the Harmony. The Caravan arrived in Calcutta on June 17, 1812, and the Harmony arrived on July 8, 1812. The American foreign missionary movement had begun.
10
Wayland, 57.
Adoniram Judson
259
THE BAPTISM CONTROVERSY: JUDSON’S PERSPECTIVE Adoniram Judson left the shores of America as an educated, ordained, and commissioned Congregationalist missionary. At no time in his early writings is there a question of doubt regarding his position on baptism. As a Congregationalist, he practiced pedobaptism. Yet doubt‘s shadow began to darken his mind as he studied the issue in passage from Plymouth to Calcutta. Within a period of four months, Judson‘s doubt rose to such heights that his convictions on the issue shifted from the position of pedobaptism to post-conversion immersion. In doing so, Judson isolated himself from his co-workers, his mission board, his home church, and his family. Judson records this theological journey in two significant historical documents. The first is a letter to his home church, in which he communicates the personal and doctrinal struggles he endured while making this decision. The second document is a ―sermon,‖ perhaps better called a treatise today, on the topic of baptism. The Occasion for Study of the Topic of Baptism Three events prompted Judson‘s study of the issue of baptism while on board the Caravan. First, while he was in Andover he had been working on a translation of the Greek New Testament. This naturally led him to investigate the proper translation for the word bapti,zw (baptizo).11 Second, Judson carried with him letters from Dr. Worcester to Dr. William Carey asking for assistance from the English Baptist missionaries. Judson, knowing that the issue of baptism would arise, wanted to be able to give a just 11 Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson (Valley Forge: Judson, 1987), 127. See also Judson, 38–39.
260
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
defense of his position of pedobaptism.12 Third and foremost, although Judson was an educated and ordained minister, he personally had no ministerial experience. Thus, Judson for the first time needed to affirm what he was going to practice in the ministry. In the opening lines of his letter home he writes: You will readily believe me, when I say, that on leaving my country, I little imagined, that I should ever become a Baptist. I had not indeed candidly examined the subject of baptism; but I had strong prejudices against the sect, that is every where spoken against. It was on board the vessel, in prospect of my future life among the heathen, that I was led to investigate this important subject. I was going forth to proclaim the glad news of salvation through Jesus Christ. I hoped, that my ministrations would be blessed to the conversion of souls. In that case, I felt that I should have no hesitation concerning my duty to the converts, it being plainly commanded in scripture, that such are to be baptized, and received into church fellowship. But how, thought I, am I to treat the unconverted children and domestics of the converts? Are they to be considered members of the church of Christ, by virtue of the conversion of the head of their family, or not? If they are, ought I not to treat them as such? After they are baptized, can I consistently set them aside, as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, until they are readmitted? If they are not to be considered members of the church, can I consistently administer to them the initiating ordinance of the church?13 These questions troubled Judson‘s mind. He knew he had to arrive at biblical answers prior to beginning his ministry abroad. Practice based upon tradition or 12 13
Anderson, To the Golden Shore, 128. Judson, Adoniram Judson, 96.
Adoniram Judson
261
upbringing was not sufficient. Biblical truth must be the foundation on which Judson stood. Searching the Scriptures: The Mode of Baptism As Judson searched the Scriptures for answers to his questions, his study proceeded upon two tracks: the meaning of the word ―baptism‖ and the significance of the ordinance in Scriptures. Regarding the first line of study, Judson made the following conclusions: The primitive word ba,ptw bapto) from which the word denoting baptism, is derived, signifies immersion. This, with the general consent of the Pedobaptists themselves, is as much the appropriate meaning of the Greek word, as of the English word, dip or immerse.14 The word denoting baptism (bapti,zw)(baptizo) is derived from the verbal of this primitive word (baptoz) (baptoz) by a change in the termination, which, according to an established principle in the Greek language, never affects the primary idea; but when made on words, expressing a quality or attribute, merely conveys the additional idea of causing or making.15 The word which denotes the act of baptizing, according to the usage of Greek writers, uniformly signifies or implies immersion.16 That immersion is the exclusive signification of the word, appears from the following testimonies of eminent Pedobaptist authors, whose concessions Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism: A Sermon Preached in the Lal Bazar Chapel, Calcutta, on Lord’s Day, September 27, 1812 (John A. Lazell, 1819), 6. 15 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 6. 16 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 7. 14
262
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal on this subject could not have been affected by Baptist partialities, but must have resulted from a conviction of truth alone.17 There are no instances, in the New Testament which require us to depart from the etymological and established interpretation of the word.18 The places chosen for the administration of the ordinance, and the circumstances attending those instances, in which the act of baptizing as particularly described, in the New Testament, plainly indicate immersion.19 The idea of immersion is the only one, which will suit all the various connections, in which the word is used in the New Testament.20
Under each point made, Judson argued extensively the various New Testament passages that supported his assertions. He was convinced that the word ―baptism‖ must mean immersion. He notes: But throughout the whole New Testament, I could find nothing that looked like sprinkling, in connection with the ordinance of baptism. It appeared to me, that a plain person should, without any previous information on the subject, read through the New Testament, he would never get the idea, that baptism consisted in sprinkling.21
Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 9–10. This is followed by a lengthy list of testimonies by pedobaptist scholars. 18 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 12. 19 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 18. 20 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 20. 21 Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 105. 17
Adoniram Judson
263
Judson‘s mode of baptism was scripturally settled. He would be an immersionist. One question still lingered, however: who should be baptized? Searching the Scriptures: The Subjects of Baptism Judson received his theological education under the interpretative hermeneutic of covenant theology, which concludes that the relationship between Abraham, Israel, and the church is without substantial distinction. As Judson approached the practice of baptism, he was forced to reinvestigate the relationship between these three entities. Were they analogous? Were the covenantal rites of circumcision and baptism identical? Judson‘s conclusions to these arguments provided him with the answer to the question that had been troubling him: who are the rightful participants in Christian baptism? He wrote to his home church regarding his discoveries: When I proceeded to consider certain passages, which are thought to favor the Pedobaptist system, (1 Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Matt. 19:14, 18:3; Acts 16:34; 1 Cor. 1:16) I found nothing satisfactory. In a word, I could not find a single intimation, in the New Testament, that the children and domestics of believers were members of the church, or entitled to any church ordinance, in consequence of the profession of the head of their family. Everything discountenanced this idea. When baptism was spoken of, it was always in connection with believing. None but believers were commanded to be baptized; and it did not appear to my mind that any others were baptized.22
264
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Here, then, appeared a striking difference between the Abrahamic and the Christian systems. The one recognized the membership of children, domestics, and remote descendants of professors, and also tended directly to the establishment of a national religion. The other appeared to be a selective system, acknowledging none as members of the church, but such as gave credible evidence of believing in Christ. This led me to suspect, that these two systems, so evidently different, could not be one and the same. And now the light began to dawn. The more I read, and the more I meditated on the subject, the more clearly it appeared to me, that all my errors and difficulties had originated, in confounding these two systems.23 I cannot describe to you, dear brethren, the light and satisfaction, which I obtained, in taking this view of the matter, in considering the two churches distinct, and in classing my ideas of each in their proper place. I became possessed of a key, that unlocked many a difficulty, which had long perplexed me. And the more I read the Bible, the more clearly I saw, that this was the true system therein revealed.24 But on the other hand, if you adopt and practice the Abrahamic system, you will inevitably confound the church and the world; you will receive into the church multitudes who are destitute of those qualifications, which are represented, in the New Testament, as requisite to constitute a member of the kingdom which Christ set up; you will ultimately establish a national religion; and this will 22 23 24
Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 100. Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 101. Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 104.
Adoniram Judson
265
be as contrary to the system laid down in the New Testament.25 These excerpts from Judson‘s letter reflect the major interpretative shift in his hermeneutic. It also indicates the reason Judson became not only an immersionist, but a post-conversion immersionist. Because post-conversion immersion is the primary distinction of the Baptist church, in a word Adoniram Judson became a Baptist. The Personal Cost Judson‘s decision to become a Baptist was not made without a great deal of personal thought and grief. Judson described his position as ―being in the grip of a Gordian knot.‖26 He reflected on the cost of his decision in his letter home: But while I obtained light and satisfaction on one side, I was plunged in difficulty and distress on the other. If, thought I, this system is the true one, if the Christian church is not a continuation of the Jewish, if the covenant of circumcision is not precisely the covenant in which Christians now stand, the whole foundation of Pedobaptism is gone; there is no remaining ground for the administration of any church ordinance, to the children and domestics of professors; and it follows inevitably, that I, who was christened in infancy, on the faith of my parents, have never yet received Christian baptism. Must I, then, forsake my parents, the church with which I stand connected, the society under whose patronage I have come out, the companions of my missionary undertaking? 25 26
Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 108. Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 106–107.
266
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Must I forfeit the good opinion of all my friends in my native land, occasioning grief to some, and provoking others to anger, and be regarded henceforth, by all my former dear acquaintance, as a weak, despicable Baptist, who has not sense enough to comprehend the connection between the Abrahamic and the Christian systems? All this was mortifying; it was hard to flesh and blood. But I thought again — It is better to be guided by the opinion of Christ, who is the truth, than by the opinion of men, however good, whom I know to be in an error.27 I saw, that, in a double sense, I was unbaptized, and I felt the command of Christ pressing my conscience. Now if I quieted my conscience in regard to my own personal baptism, and concluded, that on account of my peculiar circumstances, it was best to consult my own convenience, rather than the command of Christ, still the question would return, with redoubled force, —How am I to treat the children and domestics of converted heathen? This was the beginning of all my difficulties, and this, on Pedobaptist principles, I could not resolve, by the Bible, or by any books that I consulted.28 I have been sensible, that my change of sentiment would give much pain to many whom I loved and respected, to the members of the church I am now addressing, and to my honored father, your pastor. This reflection was the greatest trial attending my baptism. It was natural for me, therefore, to be desirous of showing you clearly the 27
Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 104–105.
Adoniram Judson
267
extremity to which I was reduced, and the potency of those arguments which constrained me to become a Baptist; hoping that you would, by that means, be led to sympathize with me, in the exercises of mind that I have experienced, and be willing to admit, that my conduct has not been the result of momentary caprice, or the still more reprehensible effect of interested and sinister motives. I solemnly profess to have done this thing from a single regard to truth and duty. I have not altered my sentiments on any point of doctrine, or Christian experience. My heart tells me, dear brethren, that I am still on with you, though we differ on the subject of baptism.29 To become a ―weak, despicable Baptist‖ was not simply a personal issue. His wife, Ann, was intimately involved in the theological journey, and in each debate she chose the side of pedobaptism.30 She listened attentively to his argumentation and studied the Scriptures personally, and though she saw the reasoning, she was hesitant. She wrote these words to her parents: ―I tried to have him give it up, and rest satisfied in his old sentiments, and frequently told him, if he became a Baptist, I would not.‖31 Upon arriving in Calcutta, Ann studied the subject once again ―with all my prejudices on the Pedobaptist side.‖32 Eventually she capitulated, not based upon marital pressure, but because she found ―that the truth appeared to lie on the Baptist‘s side.‖33
29 30 31 32 33
Adoniram Judson, Christian Baptism, 110–111. Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, 37. Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, 40. Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, 40. Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, 40.
268
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
The emotional cost to Ann was significant. Consider her reflections on this subject in a letter to her parents, then in a letter to a friend: It was extremely trying to reflect on the consequences of our becoming Baptists. We knew it would wound and grieve our dear Christian friends in America—that we should lose their approbation and esteem. We thought it probable the commissioners would refuse to support us; and, what was more distressing than anything, we knew we must be separated from our missionary associates, and go alone to some heathen land. These things were very trying to us, and caused our hearts to bleed for anguish. We felt we had no home in this world, and no friend but each other.34 She wrote in a similar fashion to a dear friend: Can you, my dear Nancy, still love me, still desire to hear from me, when I tell you I have become a Baptist? If I judge from my own feelings, I answer you will, and that my differing from you in those things which do not affect our salvation will not diminish your affection for me, or make you unconcerned for my welfare. . . . Thus, my dear Nancy, we are confirmed Baptists, not because we wish to be, but because truth compelled us to be. We have endeavored to count the cost, and be prepared for the many severe trials resulting from this change of sentiment. We anticipate the loss of reputation, and of the affection and esteem of many of our American friends. But the most trying circumstance attending this change, and that which has caused most pain, is the separation which must take place between us and our dear 34
Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, 40–41.
Adoniram Judson
269
missionary associates. Although we are attached to each other, and should doubtless live very happily together, yet the brethren do not think it best we should unite in one mission. These things, my dear Nancy, have caused us to weep and pour out our hearts in prayer to Him whose directions we so much wish and need. We feel that we are alone in the world, with no real friend but each other, no one on whom we can depend but God.‖35 The Final Decision After Adoniram and Ann made the decision together to become Baptists, they sent the following letter to the leaders of the Baptist mission agency in Serampore. Calcutta, August 27, 1812 TO THE REV. MESSRS. CAREY, MARSHMAN, AND WARD. As you have been ignorant of the late exercises of my mind on the subject of baptism, the communication which I am about to make may occasion you some surprise. It is now about four months since I took the subject into serious and prayerful consideration. My inquiries, commenced during my passage from America, and after much laborious research and painful trial, which I shall not now detail, have issued in entire conviction, that the immersion of a professing believer is the only Christian baptism. In these exercises I have not been alone. Mrs. Judson has been engaged in a similar examination, and has come to the same conclusion. Feeling, therefore, that we are in an unbaptised state, we
35
Edward Judson, Adoniram Judson, 38–40.
270
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal wish to profess our faith in Christ by being baptised in obedience to his sacred commands. Adoniram Judson, Jun.36
Consequently, on September 6, 1812, in the Lal Bazar Chapel in Calcutta, Dr. Ward of the London Missionary Society baptized Adoniram and Ann. Both had studied the Scriptures together and separately. Both were aware of the great cost of their decision. Both recognized that to become a Baptist would mean the loss of friends, support, family, and perhaps even their missionary endeavor. Both knew they were obligated to share their change in conviction with the newly formed American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. This was done by way of letter on September 1, 1812. Judson wrote his dear friend and supporter, Dr. Worcester, and informed him of his change in position. Rev. and Dear Sir, — My change of sentiments on the subject of baptism is considered by my missionary brethren as incompatible with my continuing their fellowlabourer in the mission which they contemplate on the Island of Madagascar; and it will, I presume, be considered by the board of Commissioners as equally incompatible with my continuing their missionary. The Board will, undoubtedly, feel as unwilling to support a Baptist missionary as I feel to comply with their instructions, which particularly direct us to baptise ‗credible believers with their households.’ The dissolution of my connection with the Board of Commissioners, and a separation from my dear missionary brethren, I considered most 36
Wayland, 83.
Adoniram Judson
271
distressing consequences of my late change of sentiments, and, indeed, the most distressing events which have ever befallen me. I have now the prospect before me of going alone to some distant island, unconnected with any society at present existing, from which I might be furnished with assistant labourers or pecuniary support. Whether the Baptist churches in America will compassionate my situation, I know not. I hope, therefore, that while my friends condemn what they deem a departure from the truth, they will at least pity me and pray for me. With the same sentiments of affection and respect as ever, I am, sir, your friend and servant Adoniram Judson, Jun.37 Just as they had anticipated and feared, the Judsons were left at that time without friends. Their American missionary brethren, supporting churches, and home mission board were of a different doctrinal persuasion and thus could no longer work with them. Due to political and commercial pressures, the East Indian Trading Company controlled by the English was demanding that all Americans leave India immediately. The only personal bright spot for the Judsons was their friendship with Luther Rice. He, too, had changed his position on baptism and was willing to stay with the Judsons and work. The only hope they had of staying on the mission field was the prospect of a positive response to the following letter sent to Dr. Bolles, a Baptist pastor in New England. Calcutta, September 1, 1812
37
Wayland, 83.
272
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Rev. Sir, —I recollect that, during a short interview I had with you in Salem, I suggested the formation of a society among the Baptists in America for the support of foreign missions, in imitation of the exertions of your English brethren. Little did I then expect to be personally concerned in such an attempt. Within a few months I have experienced an entire change of sentiments on the subject of baptism. My doubts concerning the correctness of my former system of belief commenced during my passage from America to this country; and after many painful trials, which none can know but those who are taught to relinquish a system in which they had been educated, I settled down in the full persuasion that the immersion of a professing believer in Christ is the only Christian baptism. Mrs. Judson is united with me in this persuasion. We have signified our views and wishes to the Baptist missionaries at Serampore, and expect to be baptised in this city next Lord‘s day. A separation from my missionary brethren, and a dissolution of my connection with the board of commissioners, seem to be necessary consequences. The missionaries at Serampore are exerted to the utmost of their ability in managing and supporting their extensive and complicated mission. Under these circumstances I look to you. Alone, in this foreign heathen land, I make my appeal to those whom, with their permission, I will call my Baptist brethren in the United States. With the advice of the brethren at Serampore, I am contemplating a mission on one of the eastern islands. They have lately sent their brother Chater to Ceylon, and their brother Robinson to Java. At present, Amblyna seems to present the most
Adoniram Judson
273
favourable opening. Fifty thousand souls are there perishing without the means of life; and the situation of the island is such that a mission there established might, with the blessing of God, be extended to the neighbouring islands in those seas. But should I go thither, it is a most painful reflection that I must go alone, and also uncertain of the means of support. But I will trust in God. He has frequently enabled me to praise his divine goodness, and will never forsake those who put their trust in him. I am, dear sir, Yours, in the Lord Jesus, Adoniram Judson, Jun38 The Judsons could only wait, hope, and pray that their short missionary career would continue. Their decision to change was marked by both a serious study of the Word of God and great personal pain. It certainly was not the prudent choice based upon the wisdom of men. It cost them everything they had at that time. It was, however, the necessary choice based upon the divine dictates of their conscience. As Luther of old said, ―Here they stood, they could do no other.‖ THE BAPTISM CONTROVERSY: THE RESULTS The Negative Response The results of Judson‘s decision in the broadest sense are evidenced by the entirety of the American Baptist missionary movement from 1812 to the present. In the narrower historic sense, Judson‘s decision prompted both a negative and positive response. The negative response was 38
Wayland, 83–85.
274
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
voiced by the Reverend Enoch Pond, a Congregational pastor in Ward, Massachusetts. He published a book entitled, A Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Christian Baptism — Designed as a reply to the Statements and Reasonings of the Rev. Adoniram Judson, which was a response to the sermon that Judson had preached in India. This sermon was published in the United States and subsequently received great attention. Pond begins the book by stating his reason for writing. But is the present revival of this controversy properly chargeable to the writer? When Mr. Judson wrote and published his Sermon, with the avowed design of transmitting it to America, he well knew that he was treading on controversial ground; and he had every reason to expect, unless he supposed it would force universal conviction, that someone in his native country would attempt a reply.39 Pond‘s reply, though, was not merely theological in context. He questioned Judson‘s motivations for his change in position. Pedobaptists would gladly indulge the hope, that these pretensions are sincere—that Mr. Judson was influenced in this matter by a sense of duty and the fear of God. They cannot, however, repress the opinion, after a deliberate investigation of concomitant circumstances, that his change is to say the least, a very mysterious event.40 He then continued with directly calling Judson‘s character into question. Enoch Pond, A Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Christian Baptism (Worcester: William Manning, 1819), 3. 40 Pond, Mode and Subjects, 5. 39
Adoniram Judson
275
Mr. Judson is a person whom, for several years, I have been accustomed to respect. It is with pain I find myself under obligations to controvert what he has advanced. It is particularly painful, that I am to become the instrument of communicating facts which seriously implicate his moral character. His particular friends may rest assured that I have no pleasure in detraction, and that it would afford me the highest happiness, could the mysteries of his conduct be fully developed, and the charge which in the ensuing pages lies against him be fairly removed.41 Pond‘s accusations are several. He began by suggesting that Judson‘s change was not based upon lines of biblical reasoning, but upon the possibility for financial gain. The reasonings he has employed have been employed before. And in the course of his theological education, it would seem he must have known this. The arguments he has now advanced and pronounced conclusive, he must have previously considered, and pronounced incorrect.42 It is somewhat remarkable in the case of Mr. Judson, that he should be changed to precisely such a point. Having begun to waver, why did he waver just so far, and no farther? Without communicating his ―exercises to any of the Baptist denomination,‖ why did he at length fasten on those very topics, which constitute the peculiarities of the Baptist faith? At a period when his own circumstances were greatly perplexed, and when liable to imagine that some new expedient might improve them; how came he to coincide so exactly with those Missionaries among whom Providence 41 42
Pond, Mode and Subjects, 4. Pond, Mode and Subjects, 6.
276
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal had thrown him, who were now prosperously established, and engaged in their benevolent work?43
Second, Pond suggests that Judson was not honest and open with his co-workers and not loyal to his home church. Another remarkable circumstance respecting Mr. Judson‘s change, is the concealment of his views from his missionary brethren. He certainly could not have renounced Pedobaptist principles without a struggle. He could not have been honestly brought to decide, that those ministers with whom he had ever associated were not regular ministers of Christ; that those churches with which he was connected, on which he was dependent, and to which he was under solemn obligations, were not regularly constituted churches of Christ; that his reverend father and most intimate Christian friends had never been baptized in the name of the Trinity, or rightly professed the Christian faith; yea, that he himself had constantly fostered that, which (pursued to what he deems its direct consequences) is ―the most pernicious practice which ever infested and laid waste the vineyard of the Lord‖ — he could not possibly have been brought to such a decision, without a deep inward conflict. How strange, then, that the conflict never became visible! That it was neither observed by, nor revealed to, his missionary companions! Here is a band of brothers, going forth with the gospel to a land of idols, not only under peculiar obligations, but, it should seem, peculiarly disposed, to maintain an intercourse the most frank and open; and yet one of them passes through a scene of the utmost mental trouble; dissents from the church order of his ancestors, 43
Pond, Mode and Subjects, 6.
Adoniram Judson
277
supporters, and associates; and is at length on the point of a complete separation from them, and has never made to them the slightest intimations of what had passed, and was passing in his mind!!44 Third, Pond accused Judson of harboring resentment regarding a past reprimand he received from the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions regarding Judson‘s interaction with the London Missionary Society. The accusation was that Adoniram had overstepped his bounds as he negotiated for a partnership between the two parties. Initially, Judson had denied that a formal admonition was given, (though later in life he notes that mistakes were made for which he was sorry). Pond seized on this discrepancy and accused Judson of both bitterness and dishonesty. It will be recollected by many, that soon after the intelligence of Mr. Judson‘s change had reached America, it was hinted in certain circles, that this had been induced by resentment. He had received, previously to his leaving the country, a solemn reprimand or admonition from the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions; and the affront occasioned by it had induced him to desert them. Rumours like these at length found their way into the East, and reached the ears of Mr. Judson.45 To substantiate his accusation, Pond quoted Dr. Samuel Worcester, the corresponding secretary of the American Board. Worcester was responding to the question concerning whether Judson actually received a formal reprimand from the Board.
44 45
Pond, Mode and Subjects, 6–7. Pond, Mode and Subjects, 8.
278
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal In the beginning of the year 1811, Mr. Judson was sent by the Prudential Committee to England, for purposes distinctly specified in his instructions. In that mission, what he was instructed not to do, he did; and what he was instructed to do, he neglected. On his return, in July of the same year, he kept himself aloof from the Prudential committee, made no regular report of his doings, and assumed the management of matters in his own way. Great dissatisfaction was expressed by every member present; and it became a very serious question whether Mr. Judson should not be dismissed. After deliberation, however, it was resolved, that he should be in a formal and solemn manner admonished. THE ADMONITION WAS ACCORDINGLY ADMINISTERED IN PRESENCE OF THE BOARD. In the February following, his deportment was such, that it again became a serious and most trying question with the Prudential committee, whether he should be permitted to go. And it was not without great heaviness of heart, many fears, and particular but tender cautions, not to him only, but to the other Missionaries respecting him, that he was finally sent out. The ultimate issue is with Him, to whose sovereign wisdom, and power, and goodness it belongs, to overrule the wayward dispositions and actions of men for the advancement of his own glory and kingdom.46
Pond then called for Judson to repent of his lying, to admit his wrongdoing, and to humble himself.
46
Pond, Mode and Subjects, 10–11.
Adoniram Judson
279
To deny the smallest particular, would be to contradict a body of men, which yields to none in America in point of respectability and worth. To quibble and equivocate on the meaning of certain words, would discover the opposite of an honest, humble spirit; and, instead of exonerating him, would in the estimation of the candid confirm his guilt. To pretend forgetfulness of the fact which he has denied would be perfectly unaccountable, and excite the suspicion of an attempt to impose upon the publik [sic]. In short, we see but one course which Mr. J. can dutifully pursue. He must retrace his steps. The credit of congregationalism does not require that he should return to his former sentiments; but the credit of religion does imperiously require, that he humble himself, and be willing to confess the truth.47 Pond continues to question Judson‘s character by suggesting that ―Mr. J. possesses naturally a proud, unstable, aspiring temper; and none need be informed, that mortified pride and cramped ambition are powerful stimulants of revenge.‖48 Fourth, Pond accused Judson of plagiarism regarding his sermon on baptism. Judson had referenced the work of a Mr. Booth throughout his treatise. In short, what part of the work is to be accredited to Mr. Judson, and what to Mr. Booth? There ought to be no foundation for questions like these. The very face of the Discourse should completely preclude them. There evidently is in this Sermon a great (not to say needless) parade of Pond, Mode and Subjects, 11. Pond, Mode and Subjects, 12–13. For a full summary of this matter of the Board‘s reprimand of Judson, see Wayland, 81– 92. 47 48
280
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal learning. We hope it was not Mr. Judson‘s design to be accredited with all this learning himself; but we are sure a great proportion of his readers are in danger of mistaking the truth. If he is a modest man, he will wish therefore it should be stated, that nearly all his quotations and references, unless it be those of a very modern date, are transcribed, verbatim et literatim, from Mr. Booth and others; and that a great proportion of the learning displayed in the work is not originally his own. We had the curiosity to spend an hour or two in comparing Mr. Judson‘s Sermon with ―Pedobaptism Examined.‖ We directly discovered between sixty and seventy quotations with their references, and nearly forty references where there were no quotations, which were manifestly transcribed from this learned work! These quotations and references must have cost Mr. Booth more labour than to write a folio. All the credit he has for them, is crowded into less than three indefinitely and equivocally constructed lines!!!49
Finally, Pond stated that Judson was missing the entire point concerning the baptism controversy. The question at issue in this part of the subject is not whether immersion is a valid mode of baptism: this we may admit. Nor is it whether this mode is preferable to all others; for we are willing that those who prefer immersion, even in our own churches, should be indulged. Nor is it whether immersion was frequently practised in the early ages of Christianity; this we have no necessity or disposition to deny. We do not say that neither of these points is questionable; but neither of them is the precise question in dispute. The point at issue is 49
Pond, Mode and Subjects, 13–14.
Adoniram Judson
281
in few words this — Is immersion essential? Mr. Judson contends, that the idea of immersion enters into the very ―nature of baptism; that the terms baptism and immersion are equivalent and interchangeable.‖ He evidently supposes immersion essential to the ordinance. This, then, is the point to which his reasonings ought to tend. Let him prove, what we deny, that immersion is essential to baptism, and the controversy is at an end.50 Pond‘s attack on Judson was to be expected on all fronts. His book was distributed throughout Congregational and Baptist churches. No doubt it impacted Judson‘s friends and family members alike. Because of this, the severity of the cost for the Judsons was extremely high. As they anticipated, it cost them more than financial support; it also called into question their personal integrity. No price can be greater for a minister of the gospel. Positive Results As stated earlier, the positive results of Judson‘s decision have been evidenced throughout the history of more than 175 years of American Baptist foreign missions outreach. Within the historic context, there were three positive results. First, Luther Rice, due to declining health, returned to America and became a spokesman for Baptist missions. His labor and love for the mission field stirred the hearts of American Baptists throughout the growing country of America. Second, Judson‘s letter to Dr. Bolles met with a positive response. The American Baptist churches, through no initiatory action of their own, already had two missionaries on the field. They received this as the hand of God and began a Baptist Association for Foreign
50
Pond, Mode and Subjects, 15–16.
282
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Missions. The letter below communicates this decision to Judson. DEAR BROTHER—by the arrival of the Tartar, in January last, we received the intelligence of your change of views on the subject of Christian baptism, and also intimations of your readiness to embark in a mission under our patronage, should a society be formed among the Baptists in America for that purpose. Your letters excited peculiar emotions. We considered it as the voice of God calling us to the formation of a missionary society. That we might not, however, be charged with acting prematurely, or be considered as interfering with the Board of commissioners, we ascertained whether they intended to continue you in their service before we formally decided to engage you in ours. Satisfied on inquiry what was our path of duty, we formed ourselves into a society for propagating the gospel in India and other foreign parts. At a meeting of the trustees, we unanimously agreed to employ you as our missionary, and to stand prepared to support you with all the pecuniary aid we can command. By the arrival of another vessel, we have heard that the Rev. Mr. Rice entertains the same sentiments as yourself on the subject of baptism. This event gives us joy, because it must add much to your comfort in a foreign land to have a fellowlabourer in the gospel. The board have not met since Mr. Rice‘s letter was received, but I am confident that he will be taken under their care. We have not had time to mature our thoughts so as to say with decision whether it would be best for you to be connected with, or independent of, our brethren at Serampore.
Adoniram Judson
283
At present it appears to us that a connexion with them would most subserve the interests of the Redeemer‘s kingdom in India, and be most productive of happiness to yourselves. All the benefits which can be derived from union with men of integrity, disinterested benevolence, and a knowledge of the country, growing out of a twenty years‘ experience would accrue to you from a relation with them. These considerations induced us in March last to write to Mr. Fuller, of Kettering, on the subject, expressing our wishes that you might be considered as belonging to the mission family at Serampore. Should it appear, from future events, more desirable that you should act alone, or as American missionaries, separately from the English brethren, then, no doubt, we shall be pleased to have it so; but our present sentiments are, that you had better act with and by their advice. In behalf of the Society, Yours affectionately, Daniel Sharp51 Finally, it should be noted that Judson‘s relationship with the Congregationalist Board was not permanently severed. In a tender exchange of letters dated twenty-seven years after the separation, Judson wrote to Dr. Anderson, the director of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. His occasion for writing was to ask for a subscription of their newsletter, The Herald, but within the letter he writes:
51
Wayland, 94–95.
284
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal I am aware that it is not regular to trouble you with this business; but, to tell the truth, I have rather caught at it as giving me an occasion to drop you a line, and perhaps get one in return. Though I have been (as some may think) a wayward son of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, I have always retained the warmest filial affection for that body, under whose auspices I first came out. I was also afraid that, attempting to change the mode of conveyance, I should, by some accident, lose my Herald altogether, unless I wrote you, and begged you to secure me from such a misfortune. There are not many, perhaps, now living, who can say, as I can, that they have read every number of the Herald, from the time it first commenced its existence, in the form of the Panoplist and Massachusetts Missionary Magazine, to the present time; and I hope to enjoy the privilege as long as I live. The Herald, in my view, contains more interesting missionary information, and a development of sounder missionary principles, than any other publication in the world. I remain, reverend and dear sir, Yours, most sincerely, A. Judson52 Dr. Anderson‘s tender reply reads as follows: REV. ADONIRAM JUDSON, Maulmain, India. REV. AND DEAR SIR,—A few days since I had the great pleasure of receiving your favour of January 21. If anything was wanted, in addition to your long, devoted, and successful missionary life, 52
Wayland, 66–67.
Adoniram Judson
285
to perfect the impression made by your letter to Mr. Evarts, dated June 13, 1880 (and which I replied to February 25, 1831), it was such a letter as lies now before me. But I should not have said, nor am I aware, that anything was necessary to give you a stronger hold upon our hearts than any other one of the brethren of your society can possibly have. We rejoice in the good, the very great good, which has grown out of your change of relation. We see the good hand of our God in this. We would not, therefore, have it otherwise. The old asperities of feeling have perished in the grave, or have been softened down by time and the grace of God. We love to think of you as intimately related to us— having — a common missionary parentage. Hence we send you the Herald, and on this account we mean to send it to you as long as you continue a missionary of our Lord and Master.53 Conclusion Adoniram Judson is the Father of American Foreign Missions. He earned this title not simply by years of service, but by the quality of his life and service. A man of God is forged by his response to turning points. The baptism controversy of 1812 was a memorable turning point in the life of Judson. His fidelity to the Word of God cost him dearly. Yet, the price he paid has reaped rewards for 200 years.
53
Wayland, 67.
286
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Book Reviews Paul R. Williamson, Sealed with an Oath—Covenant in God’s Unfolding Purpose (Downers Grove: Apollos division of Inter Varsity Press, 2007), 242 pages. Reviewed by Dr. Fred Moritz. If the reader plans to study issues related to dispensationalism and biblical covenants, he will want to consult this book. It is a treasure store of exegetical work on a broad range of biblical subjects and passages. It is a heavy, but worthwhile, book. There are 527 footnotes in 208 pages of text. The Bibliography is twenty-five pages, and the Index of Scripture references is thirteen pages, with three columns per page. In short, Williamson has done his homework. This is a book about biblical theology. Williamson states, ―Biblical theology is arguably best thought of as a holistic enterprise tracing unfolding theological trajectories throughout Scripture and exploring no biblical concept, theme or book in isolation from the whole. Rather, each concept, theme or book is considered ultimately in terms of how it contributes to and advances the Bible‘s metanarrative, typically understood in terms of a salvation history that progresses towards and culminates in Jesus Christ‖ (17). In this volume the author traces the trajectory of Old Testament covenants from the covenant with Noah through those with Abraham, Israel at Sinai, David, and the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 and other places. He traces them relative to the preceding ones to their fulfillment in Christ and ultimately to Christ in the eternal kingdom. Williamson does not directly state if he is reformed in his theology or if he is a dispensationalist. Hints in a few footnotes indicate that he may be reformed. He devotes four
288
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
pages in two chapters (19, 30, 52–55), however, to deny the existence of the reformed suppositions of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. He claims they have no basis in Scripture, and he is correct in this assertion. Williamson also anticipates a literal return of Christ and his literal reign on David‘s throne. Whether or not he is a dispensationalist, his theology, developed rigorously and thoroughly from Scripture, is certainly compatible with biblical dispensationalism. Chapter one is introductory and deals with ―Biblical Theology and the Covenant Concept.‖ Chapter two, ―Covenant and God‘s Universal Purpose,‖ discusses the nature of a covenant in Scripture. Chapters three through eight deal with God‘s covenants with Noah, the patriarchs, Israel, David, and the New Covenant as the prophets described it, as inaugurated in Christ, and as consummated in the eschatological kingdom. The author shows the relationship between God‘s covenant with Noah and the covenant with Abraham and the patriarchs. He then explains the biblical development of the succeeding covenants and how the preceding ones relate to the succeeding ones. The first strength of the book is the clarity with which Williamson puts the scriptural covenants in perspective. He describes God‘s revelation as an arc, with each covenant taking revelation closer to its culmination in Christ and his kingdom. The second strength of the work is the detailed exegesis of many passages. His treatment of each of the covenant passages (Gen 6, 12, 15, 22, 26, 28; Exod 19, 20; 2 Sam 7; Jer 31; Heb 8–10) is outstanding. There is great commentary on many other passages like Isaiah 53, Romans 3, and others too numerous to mention. One may not agree with all of his conclusions, but one should respect, appreciate, use, and profit from the exegetical work that produces those conclusions. The dispensational reader will find
Book Reviews
289
himself agreeing with most of his conclusions, because they are grounded in Scripture! Not everyone will want this book, and not everyone would profit from it. Anyone engaging in serious biblical and theological study, preparation, and education, however, will want this volume. The reader will be stimulated by it and receive a blessing from it.
290
Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal
Andrew Himes. The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family. Seattle: Createspace, 2011. 368 pages. Reviewed by Jonathan Rehfeldt. Andrew Himes is the first grandson of the man who has been dubbed ―the mightiest pen of the 20th century,‖ John R. Rice. Born of Rice‘s eldest daughter Mary Lloys, Himes was seventeen when he left fundamentalism for the communistic ideals of Karl Marx and Mao Zedong. Himes felt disillusioned with God, because he viewed God as ―an elderly white male who lived in a golden city beyond the sky, who apparently liked white people better than black people, who ordered women to be subservient to men, who supported the war aims of the United States in Vietnam,‖ and who sent most people to a literal lake of fire (276). Forty-four years after this decision, Himes has seen the emptiness of communism and has learned to appreciate his fundamentalist heritage. This appreciation is what drives this new 316-page book. The book is divided into five parts. The first is entitled ―Why We Care About Fundamentalism?‖ and relates the author‘s experience of his grandfather‘s funeral and suggests how fundamentalism may become relevant or irrelevant in the days ahead. The second is called ―Revolution, Slavery, and War,‖ where the author describes the socio-cultural and theological background of southern fundamentalism. Here especially, the author takes pains to show how southern racial tensions and their ―theological‖ justification were the sad result of America‘s abuse of slavery. The third and fourth parts rehearse familiar fundamentalist history (i.e., chapters about Billy Sunday, ―The Fundamentals,‖ and the struggle against Modernism) and are basically a family ―insider‘s‖ take on the development, growth, and later ―uneasy conscience‖ (to use one of the chapter titles) of the movement in the twentieth
Book Reviews
291
century. The author‘s last section is called ―Revisiting the Fundamentals.‖ This book should be considered valuable for a number of reasons. First, the author takes an honest look at the racism that sometimes characterized certain expressions of fundamentalism. He argues that such expressions still exist in some quarters of fundamentalism, and he provides helpful reflection for those who would distance themselves from it. Second, he describes the national disenchantment with fundamentalism which followed a period of its development and growth at the turn of the 20th century. Understanding this phase of fundamentalist history is especially important in understanding ―the uneasy conscience‖ that has sometimes described the movement; the impulse of a ―Christian America,‖ if it ever existed, was starkly challenged by the rise of modernism and evolution. Third, Himes provides a detailed account of the rise of John R. Rice as a prominent pastor, evangelist, and writer. The reader learns of key relationships being forged and lost, mostly over the issue of separation, but sometimes over unfortunate racial issues. Himes is knowledgeable (both by experience and research—there is a wealth of resources and notes listed in the back), articulate, passionate, and easy to read. Although readers may question some of Himes‘ theological propositions, particularly those made in the last few chapters (i.e., Himes prefers to call the ―Kingdom‖ the ―Kindom,‖ p. 282), few will doubt the valuable contribution this book makes to understanding what the subtitle suggests: ―The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family.‖